The short version: we all think of ALL things ALL the time. To isolate one of those thoughts and project it to you strongly enough to have you isolate it long enough to make an impression would be difficult. Even if the thought were of something that you believe you NEVER think about, that wouldn't really make a believer out of you - just move you from non-beleiever to a tad more open. A psychic or whatever cannot 'implant' a thought. Just send a strong suggestion. Even with curses - my favorite example is: I can 'suggest' you take an umbrella and stuff it - but you are the one who would have to do it. I really don't beleive in trance-like episodes that have folks doing this or that against their will. Even when drugged or boozed up. I don't believe in blackouts. It all goes on with the full permission of the mind - maybe not alwyas consciously - but nevertheless permitted. If we realize or have an understaning of how the mind works, the 'implantation' becomes impossible without consent. But knowing all this - I will still try again - but I won't say when or where - I'll just do it and then E you with the info.

[I guess I could have just said, "OK".]

I believe that is the question at hand. I have seen no evidence that it is possible. That is not to say that I think it is not possible. I don't know. I desire evidence.

Mikal, when evidence is presented to me, my first question has to do with the validity of the evidence. I do not want to believe false evidence. But if you were to inform me that you caused me to think of some "off the wall" subject, and I had a recollection of such thought, then the next day you were to inform me that you caused a different "off the wall" thought, and I again had a recollection of that different thought the next day, I think I would have to consider the odds against this occurring and conclude the evidence was real. Being "open" or "closed" has nothing to do with it. I am as open to evidence as anyone.

Agreed. If you make an attempt and you believe you may have gotten through, send an e-mail detailing the specific thought you sent. Note that we do not have to succeed the first time. I would think that success in one out of three attempts would be highly significant. (Of course, three out of three would be more immediately convincing ;-)

Hi again

I think I should add that I'm not very good at this kind of psychic projection. From time to time I try to project thoughts like "Buy a loaf of bread" to my mephew and systematically fail. The most I've ever gotten from him is that it may have crossed his mind but . . . (and here he shrugs). I have not sought to increase or perfect my limited psychic abilities. And my distaste for prying insists that I do not attempt to 'implant' or even strongly suggest. I am more inclined towards removing barriers in a brain that inhibit awareness of the higher functions. Things like false or unnecessary pathways - or deliberate misdirections. Steam cleaning the cobwebs as it were. So this test will benefit both of us. And again I humbly ask that if and when an 'unusual' thought occurs, note the area of the brain effected and the pathway to your frontal terminals. This will be very helpful. And one last thing. This may not happen for a bit of time. I need to access a means I can be sure of.

But you have to admit that that is an objective test. Either your nephew receives the messages you send, or he does not.

This does not seem to make much sense, Mikal "Prying" would seem to imply a receiving (or listening) mode. Surely, projecting a thought for someone else to receive would have nothing to do with listening (and/or "prying").

But that can not be tested since it is totally subjective. How are you ever to establish such things as those? To establish your abilities, you have to find things that can be tested. When you pass the objective tests, it makes it easier to believe you abilities may exist in other ways also, even those which can not be tested. But first, find something to test.

Come on Mikal, not that again, please. What is an "unusual" thought? I have "unusual" thoughts all the time in the sense that I think thoughts that I have never thought before. The test must be objective. Otherwise, it is worthless.

Cliff

By unusual thought I was simply referring to the test item. If this works, there will be someething extra-special about the item and it should be possible for you to chart the area. As for the steam-cleanings - the sbuject is more than aware that the process has been successful. You of all people should know that ppthway can be formed from one part of the brain to another. Changing one's attitude or perception of this or that re-routes the energy transfer and overwrites files and/or deletes those that had inaccurate information - just like a computer. Science knows it happens. I am simply trying to establish shortcuts. If you do not notice any bvrain activity, that will not invalidate the test for me. We'll see what we'll see.

Well, Mikal, it is amazing to me that seemingly simple things which may be tested turn out to be incredibly difficult, whereas incredibly complex things which can not be tested can be performed in a heartbeat.

For example, I suggested that you send me a random ordinary thought that you might cause to enter my brain. For the test to succeed, I would have to recollect that the thought did occur when you alert me to the sending of the message some time later. Assuming I am able to recollect the thoughts that you would plant in my mind, the test would be as objective as we could make it, and as simple. But you say you can not do this because it is too difficult.

On the other hand, you propose to enter my brain with the precision of a surgeon, clean out all the cobwebs, rewire my brain and make adjustments as necessary to give my thought processes the fine tuning they need for optimum performance and clarity of thought. And you will be able to do all this with ease.

Veerry Interesting :-)

Cliff

I am seriously trying to find a way to adjust to what you say you need for this 'experiment', but all I seem to be getting back from you is insult and derision. I'm too old and have been through too much to go yet another round with a skeptic. As I said early on on this board - I have no need or desire to prove anything to anyone. AS for your cobwebs - if any - I didn't realize that I had offered to remove them. I didn't even say I could remove yours. It's where my 'studies' have taken me - to the point where I am beginnintg to recognize that the brain can, like a computer, get clogged up with 'cookies' and that there are ways that we, each of us, can deal with that and work to clear it away. Since your fear of the beyond is so deeply rooted, you will have to find another way to get it to manifest itself to you. I dont' have the time or the patience. Thanks, but no thanks.

I think Science and Religion can co exist. I hope that fallacies both in science and religion can be uncovered and discarded in the search for honest real knowledge or answers that most humans are hoping to find!

Mikal -

Please forgive me for butting in, but I don't see that Cliff has either insulted nor derided you. His last post was perhaps mildly sarcastic, but, you must admit, far from the caustic,withering ad hominems we see on these boards from time to time. And I believe Cliff forwarned you that, although he would be a willing participant, he would be skeptical from the get-go. I was hoping to see something come out of this, but now it appears you don't wish to proceed. Hope you change your mind.

Larry: I have way too much going on in the energy outlay department these days. And altho' Cliff feels that it should be easy - what he is looking for is a gong - where I deal in temple bells. I have already rung those bells and they were not heard. And I don't have the energy to spare right now to make a more concerted effort. As I said when I first entered this board - I'm looking for pathways - energy transfer points - ways to connect with and possibly even program DNA and/or the genetic code (what I feel is the key to healing and re-incarnation - as well as the means to acquire talents and ideas without going through the reccommended physical processes put forth for us - like reading and classes and instruction - etc.) In short - the higher powers of which legends are made. A major insight to these keys may be found in D. I. D. - multiple personalities - where one personality has talents of which the main personalitiy has no awareness. [like being able to play the piano or paint masterpieces and the like]. There are also keys in cases of demonic possession and voodoo rites and Santa Rosarita (sp?). These are my interests. And this is what I am looking to discuss. But not confronted. [Like - 'who are you and what are your credentials' - and that sort of stuff - not to mention - 'prove who you are in a way that I can believe and accept']

What do you call the following which you said 04/18/99: "And my distaste for prying insists that I do not attempt to 'implant' or even strongly suggest. I am more inclined towards removing barriers in a brain that inhibit awareness of the higher functions. Things like false or unnecessary pathways - or deliberate misdirections. Steam cleaning the cobwebs as it were."

Mikal, I have no idea where you obtained the information that I have a "deep rooted" fear of the beyond. But it is clear to me that we are working at cross purposes. My purpose is to try to better understand the human mind and it's capabilities. Your purpose appears to be to counsel me, to solve my deep seated problems and to give my life purpose.

With respect to my purpose, I believe I may have some reason for at least a slight suspicion that two minds may have the capability of communicating long distance. It is based on something a patent attorney once said.

He was discussing how important it is to document any possible invention as quickly as possible and he made a statement similar to the following: In litigation, he said, he had found that it is "often" the case that different people in different companies have the same idea about the same time, sometimes within minutes, and, of course, the one with the earliest documented date is the one who wins the patent.

I have never forgotten that, and although I can suspect co-incidence, or perhaps a creative ploy on the part of the attorney to get his audience to document our inventions better, I have never been able to get it totally out of my mind that something like that might actually be possible. (Some people claim that if you stare at the back of someone's neck long enough they will turn around and look at you. That sort of thing.) You claim to have certain powers. How do I know you are not telling the truth. But I wanted an experiment that might shed some light on the phenomenon I have described above--if it exists.

For three or four days, now, we have argued over the nature of the experiment. I have wanted an experiment that might actually show something. You have insisted on solving my problems.

For example, on 04/14/99, you said: "Suppose you are looking for the answer to a perplexing question that has troubled you for a very long time. I could say that I have asked your 'higher mind' to allow you the luxury of 'seeing' the answer

On 04/15/99, you said: There is a deep seated dilemma that will surface with an answer. I am not planting the thought - just lending energy to the process. I try not to pry.

On 04/18/99, you said: Things like false or unnecessary pathways - or deliberate misdirections. Steam cleaning the cobwebs as it were. So this test will benefit both of us. And again I humbly ask that if and when an 'unusual' thought occurs,

On 04/18/99, you said: You of all people should know that ppthway can be formed from one part of the brain to another. Changing one's attitude or perception of this or that re-routes the energy transfer and overwrites files and/or deletes those that had inaccurate information - just like a computer.

Sorry we couldn't get together, Mikal. But you seem uninterested in helping me with my questions and I am certainly not interested in enlisting your help in solving my deep-seated fears.

To all:

The above is a repeat of my interests - a statement of fact - not a claim of having any talents or powers either inferred or implied. Nor is the above an offer to anyone to perform any function whatsoever. I am here to chat and learn.

Mikal - I've often wondered how it is that one "member" of a multiple personality can have different talents and abilities unknown to another "member" or other "members".

Do you have any thoughts on how this occurs, or have there been any articles written in the professional journals with speculation on how this occurs? (I ask out of total ignorance)

Larry, I saw your question to Mikal. I don't have the answer to that, but I do remember reading about a particular case of MPD. One of the personalities was allergic to orange juice and would break out in hives. None of the other personalities had that problem, suggesting that our bodies have the ability to turn those reactions on and off. I think there is much more to us than modern medicine has discovered so far.

It's certainly an area I would like to see more research in.

Larry - Diane

Good Morning

I think that it all has to do with our DNA and our genetic codes. If we are the product of everyone of our ancestors and if our bodies retain bits and pieces of all of their genetic coding and their DNA and if any or a bunch of our ancestors were of a strongly concentrated make-up (focused on a talent or 'gift') - then there is a possiblity that that particular strand of DNA - or genetic memory contains the knowledge necessary to perform as did that ancestor without the necessity of having to re-learn or re-educate - just re-familiarize. This might also account for why some folks pick up this or that more easily than others. So much for my theory.

So far - I have noticed that crown area of our heads is where the connection can be accessed and that the areas above our ears have points that can act as antennae to either our inner or outer world. [access terminals] A triagulation forms with a point around the area where our spinal cord connects with our brains. This would make sense. The area within that triangle seems to be the archives [processing center] that has a direct connection to what is called the 3rd eye. From there the information is distributed to the frontal lobes. The problems are all the sub-programs and sub-sub programs and on and on. And there are also mental blocks, suppressions, repression, misinformation, etc. to add to the mix. The fact that all Theologies, philosophies and the like expect one to clear one's mind of all thought but the one (to be named by the group) leads me to believe that the beginning of this journey to re-claim our 'souls' must start with an ordered and neat little brain - much like the newly set up computer that sits there just waiting for us to clutter it up. Any thoughts?

Mikal -- what about the theory of morphogenetic fields...where all ideas exist in the atmosphere around us, in a way, and can be tapped into by anybody? And on a different level, that all of our own ideas, feelings, etc. are sitting in our own energy fields, and can also be accessed by others, if they know how?

I think everyone has a natural psychic ability, and there's nothing mystical about it -- it's a part of our natural functioning, though many people suppress it. I have a close friend in Argentina (I'm in the US) and we can "pick up" on one another. I'll know when he's stressed and call to see what's wrong, and he does the same.

I've worked for many years to fine-tune these abilities. I think I have a natural talent for it, as does my mom, but I think anyone can do it.

Cliff: I haven't found out anything about the White House briefing on human embryonic stem cell cloning as yet, but will definitely hear more this weekend. I did learn that one of the senators from AL has taken a stand against it, but his wife is a spokesperson for several professional research organizations who are coming out against lifting the federal ban on such funding!

Rosemary, I heard a talk by Michael Shermer, founder of the Skeptics Society, and he said that once after a grueling bicyle race he was totally convinced that he had been abducted by aliens. Lack of sleep, hunger, fever can all cause delusions--although your experience does not appear to involve any of these. It does seem strange that among people who have near-death experiences that Christians see Christ, Muslims see Mohammed, etc. I recently read ("Phantoms of the Brain") that individuals with temporal lobe epilepsy are known to undergo religious conversions, and the effects often carry over into their lives long after the seizure episodes have passed. I've always assumed something like that happened to Paul. The same book says that a Canadian psychiatrist has claimed to evoke religious awakenings through electrically stimulating that area of the brain. A woman in GA who sees visions of the virgin Mary also has unusual brain waves during her sightings.

None of which goes to prove or disprove the existence of God, but if He exists, it certainly demonstrates his lack of fairness in not allowing all of us the same insights!

Mikal -

Your thoughts on how MPD might occur: I'm more or less with you right up to the part where you say that, not just a talent (which I agree with), but also the ability to "recall" that talent without retraining, can be transmitted via our genetic coding. To me, that sounds vaguely like Lysenkoism.

I'm not saying that acquiring a talent does not change our genetic "wiring", it may well do. And the talent may well be passed on as a latent ability to succeeding generations. But it's a leap from saying that to saying that the ability to express that talent can be recalled without relearning.

OTOH, I don't have anything better to offer. I think these cases are extremely interesting, but to come to an understanding of how it is they occur apparently would require more than we have at our disposal at this time(ie, using scientific methodology).

Dianne -

Now your experience with your friend in Argentina is really intrigueing. Can you share any specifics?

Larry -- I've had lots of psychic experiences...I'm not sure what you're looking for, though. I'll be happy to try to answer you.

With my Argentine friend, it kind of functions like sonar, in a way. Sort of like bouncing energy toward him and picking up a response. It's not done consciously like that...it's more like I can feel him there on the other end of the line, and sense his emotional state if it's very up or very down. When I can't feel him there, it's usually static on my end -- some stress that's affecting me. I can do it with most of my friends -- and they with me -- but it's more pronounced with him, perhaps because we are very close.

The first psychic experience I remember was when I was about 10. My father's sister lived a few hours away and would occasionally drop in with her family, unannounced. My mother did not like that at all! One day I just knew that they were on their way, and told my mom. Sure enough, they were there about an hour later. It's very hard to describe, but the feeling is just so strong and clear that it's unmistakeable.

Dianne - You say you can have these experiences with most of your friends and they with you. What kind of people do you run around with, Dianne? (Cue the Twilight Zone music - NEE NEE NEE NEE, NEE NEE NEE NEE)

Seriously though, I thought that these types of experiences were not quite so common. Do you "sensitives"(for lack of a better word) seek each other out, or is it random chance that you made friends with others who could do what you do?

If I have the "Twilight Zone" theme stuck in my head for the rest of the day, you're gonna hear about it!

I think "sensitives" is a perfect word. And I do think that we sought each other out -- don't you end up with friends who share interests with you? I can think of at least 10 people I know who have well-developed psychic ability. I think it's much more common than people realize. Even people who would say they have no ability in that area probably pick up things about other people, without being aware of it.

If you went over to a married friend's house for dinner, and they had just had a big fight moments before your arrival, wouldn't you feel it in the air?

Interesting, Dianne. How often does this occur? Is this person a relative?

That's true, of course. But, Dawn, because it is the case that "visions" often result from stress or deprivation of one kind or another does not mean that it is always the case.

It just now occurred to me that this is basically the same argument we once had on the Bible Codes messageboard years ago--remember that--and I concede that you were correct in that case, as you usually are. (Note, I kept up with the Brendan McKay site for a time after the Bible Codes messageboard closed down, and, as time went on, it became increasingly clear to me that McKay had completely discredited the Bible Codes paper. Actually, it was the actions and the arguments of the principal author of the paper, in response to McKay's questions, that finally convinced me. Thus the test was not as objective as it first appeared, and the authors of the paper were not as honest.)

I can accept that. Nevertheless, I still maintain, as I did then, that it may not always be the case. Something like that may eventually turn out to be real, and I think we need to be open to evidence. I remain skeptical, but open to evidence. And in the absence of evidence, I accept sincerity.

Yes, that certainly seems to be the trend.

Hey, that was my complaint. You stole my complaint :-)

Do you ever have such feelings that turn out to be wrong, Dianne? IOW are your premonitions always correct?

Dawn, thankyou for your reply, a couple of things.

1. I didn't SEE anybody or anything, nor did I HEAR anybody or anything whilst in the white tunnel. 2. I was already a converted person for want of a better expression, and this conversion, had already 'changed my life.' Not to the extent that it is now obviously, in that my husband now works full time for the church and therefore so do I, but I was seriously committed to the work of the church at the time of this experience. It was definitely not a conversion experience. 3. I do think there may be a scientific explanation, I was certainly overwhelmed by the thought that God was speaking to ME. Now He may not have been speaking to me at that particular moment, other than the fact that the words that were being read have relevance for a Christian. But because it followed a description of something that my husband had described the previous night, it sure felt like they were being spoken to me/us personally and if you can try to imagine how that felt, I'm sure you can begin to guess what I'm trying to convey. I mean being paralysed by oncoming train/car lights might begin to approximate the feeling, and I'm sure there is at least the beginning of a scientific explanation for that, or for the rush of adrenaline that sometimes overtakes us .. I'm pretty sure that was part of the experience. [cont]

Dawn, continued ..

I'm not going to disagree with you here Dawn, but I would like to try and communicate my particular perspective if I may. I'm the mother of four sons, they are all totally different, some, like me, have a blind spot when it comes to things mathematical, one is a dancer [ballet], for which the other three have been unmercifully teased, I don't have to go on enumerating the differences, you will have understood my point. You will also understand I'm sure, that I love them all and I would be totally devastated if I lost one. But although I strive to be totally 'fair' in my dealings with them, there are times when one needs strength, or comfort, or a helping hand, or someone to mourn with, or someone to share their joy with. You will see, I'm sure, that it is rare that they all need the same something at the same time. And I'm equally sure that you wouldn't say I was being unfair to the others were I to offer say a helping hand to one at any particular time. I think the more interesting part, is that all my sons, do still, in spite of their now adult status, turn to their parents to share their joys, sorrows and problems, to seek advice etc. That is the role that God plays in my life and He plays it because I acknowledge that He is my Creator.

Cliff: My friend in Argentina is not a relative.

I rarely have "premonitions", though I see why you described my experience with my aunt's family that way. My ability is more like a deep view of the present, as opposed to the future. I am able to sense some people's emotional states, especially those close to me, and know what's going on with them. In the case of my aunt's family en route to my home, they were probably focusing their thoughts and feelings on us, and I felt that.

My impressions can be wrong, but very rarely when they're as strong as that early experience was.

Again, I don't think these experiences are mystical or unusual at all. I think "sixth sense" is exactly right -- it's just like seeing or hearing, but more subtle.

Diane

The entire astral plane - the ehter - whatever one wants to call it act like a 'morphagenetic' (sp?) field. All that is or ever was is there to glean when we find the key. It would be of interest to me to know in what part of your brain you feel these connections. Larry asks for scientific methodology. I say - observe the brain and feel it working - or isn't observation part of the process. There will never be enough proof ofr most to believe in the psychic and its immense possibilities. Like being able to sit down and play the piano without a lick of instruction except for a moment or two of familiarization. Or speaking a language without study. There are those that do these things at will - by tuning into the 'beyond' and reaping what they need. Can we prove this? Probably not. Do we need to? I don't think so. I say - 'enjoy it!'

Mikal -

Of course it is

But I believe there is something to it. Proof is another matter altogether. It may be that (at least presently) psychic experiences are simply not amenable to scientific methodology.

However:

Sure, there are people who do these things, but I'm not so sure we have to resort to psychic phenomena to explain them. It is A possibility, but then are all special talents to be explained in this way?

I continue to marvel at the multiple personalities and the variety of manifestations of personality and talent and allergies and addictions, etc.,etc. within one body.

Dawn Willis: It does seem strange that among people who have near-death experiences that Christians see Christ, Muslims see Mohammed...

I've heard that explained this way: God, angels, higher beings, etc., have no physical form. In order to "appear" to someone, they'll take on a form that person is comfortable with.

I agree with what you said about it not seeming fair that some people get all the bells & whistles. I read stories about people having a vision or a dream that details exactly what their life purpose is and what their work should be, and how to go about it. Whereas I have to keep searching for mine!

If psychic ability is real, significant and repeatable, it is amendable to scientific methodology. It is only a case of setting up the experiment correctly.

If it is not amendable to scientific inquiry, it is because it is not real, not significant and not repeatable.

Larry

I thimk one should ask if talent is a matter of training or 'soul'? I have heard some highly proficient pianists zip through a sonata perfectly - but without 'talent'. That ability to involve the audience - that 'something else' that actually touches the 'soul' of another. The piano serves as a good example - because it involves vibrations and there seems to be a link there to the 'unknown'.

Greetings, Earthlings!!! Home in one piece from Legal Land. To Rosemary I’d like first to say thank you for sending us such vital armor as we marched into battle. It served us very well. By the time it was over, even the lawyers had to admit God was on our side! We now have excellent medical testimony about the exact nature of the anomaly in our son’s brain plumbing system that enabled an astounding Miracle to occur. In 2 weeks’ worth of testimony, that word arose on all sides more than a dozen times.

Now I get to try and figure out exactly how to document the overall story, though it’s still got a couple of years’ worth of wrap-up wrangling to wade through. For openers let me introduce for general discussion the subject of Miracles. I’d like to know how you all view such things, and what the nature of adequate proofs would be for you to acknowledge the reality of a given Miracle. Secondly, I’d like your separate views about Angels. I’d like to know how you would define spiritual beings and their subjective or objective reality, whether you believe it possible that there is a discorporeal order of creation, and any thoughts about what these beings do for a living.

I’m glad to be back, and look forward to some good exchanges that will honestly help me translate an amazing story from an ever-growing archive of technical data.

Rosemary, your analogy of God the parent supplying to each according to his/her needs doesn't help me much. I'd say it is the people who need some sort of "sign" to help them believe the most that never get one. I'm a confirmed agnostic, but if I had a miraculous vision of some sort I might become a believer myself!

Diane, if God or whatever assumes the shape the person is most comfortable with, that implies that none of the shapes are necessarily "right," but different manifestations of the same thing. So why are there so many different religions trying to wipe each other out?

Larry, I am not in tune with anyone, but I know a pair of identical twins who appear to have that ability. They finish each other's sentences, etc. However, when we tested their ability to trasmit what card they were holding from another room, they couldn't do it. I've heard that kids who grow up with a computer will have their brains wired differently. I suspect that is true of the first TV generation, too. But the new wiring pattern won't be inherited--just the ability to form new neural connections according to the stimulations received in early childhood.

Cliff--Ah, the Bible Codes. That's what started me on these message boards, because my sister is a firm believer in them and is still. She's convinced the world will end in 2007, but isn't sure she will be raptured in the pre-tribulation year of Y2K, so she's bought a year's supply of toilet paper and Prozac. Unfortunately, I'm not kidding. I'm not sure sincerity is any substitute for being right.

I didn't realize I stole the "God's not fair" argument from you (possibly it didn't originate with you either!) But it is a good argument, and I can't figure out why more people don't see it that way. If God had wanted me to be a good Christian, he would certainly have arranged the circumstances of my life differently. I agree that visions or whatever can come from sources other than stress, but the temporal lobe seizure explanation seems to fit most situations, at least as a theory. The big question is why one has religious experiences when neurons of that area are activated, rather than seeing gorillas or having bungee jumping fantasies.

RE: The White House briefing on stem cell research. The WH would like for researchers and health care advocates to mount a grass roots effort on the benefits of this research. A possible solution would be to offer embryos some protection without giving them full human status, as well as to explore alternatives to harvesting stem cells from embryos.(I don't mind exploring, but until a good alternative is found, the embryo cell work should not be abandoned) At the hearing, a man whose son has a defective aortic valve said that stem cells could provide superior transplantation tissues and therapy. Scoffing at the idea that scientists should not be playing God, this father said "The history of human survival is the history of man playing God." The National Catholic Bioethics Center said that many Americans who have deeply held moral objections to embryo destruction may choose not to receive any benefits from this new re

Dawn, I agree, that is exactly what is implied. No one way is the "right" way. And religions have been engaged in power struggles over turf for thousands of years.

Joy: I always enjoy your postings. I missed the story of your son -- I'd love to hear even the short version.

I believe in angels. I've had some interesting experiences that lead me to believe that we do get assistance at times. I also know a woman who can see them. She is over 70, a very educated world traveler, someone who speaks several languages and is devoutly Catholic. Not a loopy new age type at all. She is the mother of the intuitive Argentine friend I mentioned earlier. She says that the ability to see angels runs in her family, and that she saw them as a child.

This story just popped to mind. Some of you may be familiar with the work of Caroline Myss, PhD. She is a "medical intuitive" who can not only see illness in the body, but get feedback on the underlying emotional cause. She has worked in partnership with a medical doctor, who tested her accuracy rate by having her diagnose his patients from afar. Anyway, I heard her tell this story, told to her by one of the participants:

A woman was in a car accident and found herself out of her body, hovering above the cars. She was able to read the thoughts of the people in the 5 cars behind her, such as "Now I'm going to be late", etc. The woman in the 5th car back started to pray for her. The accident victim heard the prayers and saw a flash of white light arc toward her car. She ended up back in her body, but not before noting the license number of that woman's car.

A while later, out of the hospital, she found the woman's address and showed up at her door, flowers in hand, to thank her.

Joy, Welcome back!! You've been missed.

Hello, Dianne, and you as well, Michael! Short version is a Miracle of the first order which has been under investigation in various corners of the world for nearly 7 years. There has been some serious obstruction. There has also been a problem with the fact that the Miracle was deliberately stolen by some amazingly evil people. That is what was most recently fought in court, and which is now ready to go to the next level.

As the peripheral legal haggling wraps up over the course of the next couple of years, it’s my job to find a way to present the experience and the evidence. I’ve got literally thousands of pages of technicalities to condense into reasonable form. Added are the reams of expert testimony. The angels are a separate level thus far researched by the Catholic Church based on the word of a priest who just happened to have witnessed their presence.

Here I am extremely interested in your and Mikal’s experience and knowledge in paranormal realms of consciousness, as this has bearing. As my son told us often from the time he was 4, "I’m a psycho. I know these things."

Cliff -

OK, I agree, I was merely pointing out that maybe we do not yet possess the right tools to render it amenable to scientific inquiry. Imagine van Leewanhoek(sp?? - you know, the guy who invented the microscope) being told of the present-day understanding of atomic theory; he could not subject it to testing and repeatability with the tools at his disposal. Likwise, we may lack, at this time, the proper tools for evaluating psychic ability.

Mikal -

Yes, a pianist's interpretive skills are certainly a major component of musical talent. But do you believe that this is only attributable to a "soul", or one soul communicating with the souls of others(the audience)? It's an interesting concept, but is it the only option?

Now to play catch-up... Mikal and Dianne, this exchange of ideas is very interesting. I like the concept of morphogenetic fields, and Mikal’s generalized localities of higher operation in the brain mechanism. From personal experience and observation, consciousness (not well defined by science) does indeed operate on noncorporeal levels, thus can and does access information from sources unconnected biologically to the operation and not limited by cause-effect or entropy (space-time dimensionalities).

For Dianne, can you define morphogenetic fields, and the possible mechanism of access?

For Mikal, I’d like you to consider a genetic anomaly in brain plumbing, or blood supply which mimics the cross-connections of neurons we all know are necessary to thought. Were a human brain to somehow develop multiple cross-fill capabilities, somewhat analogous in oxygenation terms to the electrical cross-connections of neural nets which allow complex thought, might this anomaly tend to signify an unusual ability to access those higher operations?

Also, I’d be interested in anyone’s knowledge about the Pituitary gland and its role in facilitating the higher functions of thought and physiological processes.

Mikal -

Sorry, I meant to add this to my previous post. I know of piano teachers (at advanced and even master-class level) who actually TEACH interpretation. Yes, some are naturally adept at interpretation, but others can (and do) acquire such skills.

Joy -

Welcome back! I will give your queries some thought and post my responses to them later.

Thank you Larry, and I welcome anything you can offer toward exploration of my several-layered dilemma. In case you are planning to list pituitary data, let me explain that area of this particular case.

Following the accident an endocrinologist was called in to conduct tests to see if our son’s pituitary function was effected. There were demonstrated shear injuries in that area, so this was necessary. No disfunction was found. It is a fact, however, that at least 6 people (including a priest) witnessed an event where our son physically grew nearly 4 inches right in front of our eyes.

This was the incident of angelic presence, which is a separate matter, but we all saw it happen. He got his over-21 driver’s license just a month before this accident occurred, and his height at death was significantly different than his height as recorded on that license. Growth I know to be part of pituitary functioning, though to have something like this occur in a moment of time is flat-out "impossible." Yet it did happen. In a hospital, witnessed by hospital personnel. Less than 10 days later absolutely NO pituitary disfunction was observed on any level.

Thanks for the link, Dianne. I’m going there now to check it out!

Joy, from what' I've read, the pituitary gland is related to the brow chakra, or what's called the "third eye". That is where the ability to see auras, etc., originates from.

I've read that the chakras, energy vortices at 7 points throughout the body, interface directly with the endocrine system. A lot ot intuitive input comes not through the brain itself, but through the solar plexus chakra. That's where the expression "gut feeling" comes from.

Hmmm. Should’a paid more attention in biology class, I see (actually, I did very well in bio. It was chemistry I had problems with!). Somebody please explain to me in lay-terms the strange biochemistry of endocrine systems, with emphasis on triggers. I’m prepared to accept readily that massive trauma might set off an endocrine response of most unusual intensity, including this growth thing. What I’m not understanding is how it can react so strangely and then go back to "normal" before anybody could do tests.

I checked the link you provided, Dianne, and it was extremely interesting. These fields, which I first heard mention of in a crystallography course, are thought by some to be a manifestation of the electromagnetic field or of the gauss fields of subatomic matter exponentially expanded. Obviously, for a lizard to re-grow a tail, there has to be a spatial "memory" tail. Question - are these fields possibly those "memes" Leszek and others have spoken of?

Dawn, I'm sorry you didn't find any encouragement there. I'm afraid God will never twist your arm and give you the sort of sign you're looking for, the sort that says, "You absolutely must believe, there is no alternative." On the other hand I would suggest that He has given you many 'signs' that you maybe aren't too keen on, and that I understand completely, it's very difficult to dive off a board when you can't see the water you're going to land in. A lot depends on how genuine you are when you're "seeking" I suspect. I have found that "seek and you SHALL find," is quite true, however I can't promise that you'll LIKE what you find. -)

Joy, how happy I am to have your chirpy voice back in our midst.

Rosemary, I hope you saw my original message today, because the verses (Joshua) you gave me I printed out and kept in front of us on the table through the entire ordeal. Our lawyer is an elder in the Presbyterian Church, as happens to be my mother-in-law who was called as witness. I'm happy to be here again, and very much pleased with the world right now!!!

I must have missed something in the exchange between you and Dianne. "Signs" are there all the time. It's not God's job to make any of us pay attention. Those of us who do pay attention are amply rewarded. Entirely subjective. Would anyone have it be different?

Oops... that was Dawn and NOT Dianne! Geez. I've got to get reacclimated!

Welcome back, Joy :)

One problem I see with concepts such as angels, chakras, morphogenetic fields, and various other non-corporeal entities, is how are you going to find out what they are, unless you find a way of measurement and quantitation? The only attempt I ever saw to physically measure such things was Kirillian (sp?) photography, which was shown to be an artefact of static electrical discharge.

For example Sheldrake's idea that bodily growth is controlled by a morphogenetic field is cute, but lacking for any evidence. Amphibians and some some lizards can regrow lost tails and limbs, but birds and mammals can't - are we to assume that only early vertebrates have morphogenetic fields? If we can't measure it, we can't be sure it's there, and the supposed effects of such ectopic fields, i.e. growth in a particular shape, can also be explained by more prosaic internal chemical gradients within cells and tissues, which have been reliably documented in the embryology of many species. One could always argue, I suppose, that internal gradients are aligned according to the ectopic field, but why multiply entities until there is a clear need to do so? Gradients form naturally by diffusion, and don't need to be told where to go :)

There's nothing wrong with speculation to start with, but eventually, one has to find a means of measurement. One can't speculate for ever...

Thank you much for the welcome back, Leszek, I have missed you!

I realize speculation in these realms is merely speculation. What is different in this instance is that the reality is there in stone, and those of us left behind get to figure it out. It's already there and already completely unexplainable unless we look at other levels. That's honestly all I'm trying to do! There is more going on here than meets the eye...

§:o)

Greetings, Joy. Welcome back.

With respect to Miracles, if you mean something out of the ordinary, but reasonably within known physical laws, and there were several witnesses with no noticeable ax to grind, I would tend to accept testimony. With respect to Angels, I see no reason to believe in Angels. Some people believe in ghosts. If ghosts exist, I suspect there may be a relationship the existence of ghosts and the belief in Angels.

A couple of days ago, Dawn indicated that she had recently read that "a woman in GA who sees visions of the virgin Mary also has unusual brain waves during her sightings."

I find that sort of thing incredibly interesting. I have a premonition that in the near future, science will shed significant light on such things as that. (It is my sense that scientific examination of such things is becoming increasingly acceptable within the scientific community.)

If I were to have such a vision, I think I would first suspect it to be internal to my brain and look for stimuli to which my brain may have reacted. Most visions, I have been given to understand, occur in conjunction with stress or stressful situations, and I would tend to examine that possibility first. If I were to decide, for whatever reason, that the vision was externally caused, I would still have the problem of deciding precisely what it was that I believed. (I guess after having been an agnostic for almost thirty years, and having grown used to the condition, it is difficult to imagine being anything else.)

But is she unhappy as a result? Would she be happier if you were to convince her of the error of her ways? I suspect not. If your situation is anything like mine, the only real problem with your sister's beliefs is that your sister is worried sick about what will happen to your soul after the rapture. If only you were to profess to accept her beliefs, it would make her so happy. I suspect from time to time that you are tempted, if only to see her smile. (You do want her to be happy, do you not? :-)

Yes, that would be convenient for the politicians, would it not? :-)

That "solution" will satisfy nobody.

Maybe I just lack imagination, but for some reason, the logistics of that escapes me :-) How the heck does one steal a Miracle.

Well said, and I agree. I expect we will soon have them, however. For some reason I feel very strongly about this. (I expect it will happen sometime between now and the rapture in 2007.)

Of course. Why would one think it might be otherwise. Some people are adept at mathematics, "but others can (and do) acquire such skills."

Why not? That's my question. Why not? That God does not chose to provide a clear and discernable sign may be an indication, as you would say, of the nature of God. On the other hand, it is equally plausible to suspect that this is an indication that God does not have a nature at all.

Leszek, I basically agree with you. But I think Larry said something worth considering earlier. Maybe we are looking at something real but simply lack the tools to measure it. Possible? Probable?

True - if you cannot measure or observe its effects, you can't know it's there... but that doesn't mean to say it isn't! :)

I'm not going to stick my neck out and claim there are no more forces out there because we've discovered them all :) Too many people have been shot down in flames doing that! Neither am I going to rain on every speculative parade that comes by - speculation is an important part of scientific discovery.

It's just that Sheldrake published his ideas about morphogenetic fields, what, 20, 30 years ago? And after that nothing. No research program producing reams of data showing it's feasible. It is a neat idea, but it rather reminds me of the "ether" that physicists used to explain the propagation of light in space... as they saw it, light had to travel through a medium. Michelson-Morley disproved the existence of the ether with a very elegant experiment, and in Sheldrake's case, the idea of chemical gradients to explain the phenomena he sought to understand seems to be scientifically more productive... multiple intersecting chemical gradients may well prove sufficient to explain morphological development and other phenomena like apoptosis (programmed cell death which is an essential part of embryogenesis).

Cliff, I think you know the reason why God doesn't twist anyone's arm, but as I said, if you seek, you will find .. it's entirely up to you.

Thanks for the welcome back, Cliff! Seems to me that if something is "reasonably within known physical laws" it can’t be a Miracle. I’d tend to apply the term to something which is outside known physical laws. True, the word would then indicate that there’s some physical law at work that we don’t know about, which is okay. It’s an incentive to look deeper, that’s all.

I wonder if you recall the story of Lazarus. The Sanhedrin was mighty uncomfortable with a dead man walking...

Short version, if one is not particularly concerned about breaking the law, stealing a Miracle is as easy as stealing a life.

I’m not sure about morphogenetic fields either, Leszek, but science hasn’t defined the mechanism of form yet. We know there are chemical triggers that activate certain information to grow a brain or a liver or a skeleton, but the same chemical triggers work across the entire spectrum of life forms. It doesn’t seem too farfetched to me that there may be some sort of spatial "idea" in the vicinity of growing tissue.

We observe the effects of form all around us all the time, so it’s not entirely accurate to say we don’t observe. We just don’t yet measure. Stem cell research may help in this. Meaning that by introducing the "foot" trigger so the cell grows into a foot, researchers may at some point observe the extension of a foot-shaped spatial field around the cell if they look hard enough. OTOH, if there is such a thing as a "form field," it may extend spatially in tandem with the growing tissue and be limited within the space being taken up by the tissue as it grows.

Dianne mentioned the pituitary connection to the "third eye," said to be able to detect auras. The anecdotal evidence that auras exist is considerable even if we don’t have sensitive enough equipment to detect them. I’d guess the spatial "form field" - by whatever name - is very subtle, but so are neutrinos. It’s very hard to detect neutrinos, but they do exist. I would reserve judgment, mostly because it’s obvious that we don’t have all the answers.

Joy -

Unfortunately, I can offer nothing in the way of information with regard to the pituitary. I'm only a poor pharmacist, not a molecular biochemist or cellular biologist.

With respect to miracles, I am uncomfortable with a belief in the "suspension" of physical laws in order to permit the occurance of a miracle. Miracles are, as you have already suggested, a call for further investigation into how they occur. We may not yet possess the tools for uncovering the mechanism(s) involved, but, unless God himself appeared before me and said "Hey, Pal! I did that!" I'm gonna say some natural explanation exists for the observed phenomenon(read:miracle).

Angels? Nah! I rather like Leszek's linking of Angels with ghosts, if ghosts exist; and if they do, then there may be some connection to "events" attributed to angels.

Some may ask: why posit these events as caused by ghosts rather than angels? Well, I don't believe in ghosts either, but if one can imagine an extracorporeal existence (which we presently lack the tools to measure), one STILL needn't posit a creator, especially one who felt he needed to surround himself with angels. (Still using that razor!)

Non-corporeal existence is the underlying issue, isn’t it? It goes right to the heart of a Miracle such as the one my son experienced and we witnessed, or the ability of some non-corporeal aspect of his life force to reorganize itself when it should have been dead. This, and the postulated existence of both ghosts and angels, would tend to suggest that there is a separate force or field in operation which we do not yet know how to quantify, but which contains some degree of consciousness. Still, we know very well that some of the forces and fields defining reality are subtle in the extreme, so we can’t simply write off greater levels of subtlety just because we can’t measure it.

I can’t equate ghosts with angels because the Bible tells me that humans and angels are separate orders of creation. I might be willing to entertain the notion that post-death humans may become the same substance as angels, but again the separate orders would likely remain separate. Just for the sake of tossing this out into cyberspace, however, I’ll tell you that I have seen angels and there is no mistaking that these are not and never were human. I’ve never seen a ghost.

Joy -

First of all, I am not at all familiar with the particulars concerning the event in your life that you call a miracle. Your post claiming that several hospital personnel and a priest( and yourself,yes?) witnessed your son growing 4 inches right before their eyes is all I know. The post was worded (as I interpreted, anyway)so as to suggest that the antecedants to this miracle had been set out in previous postings, but I am totally unaware of them.

I, like Cliff, am confused about the "theft" of the miracle. Your "explanation" to Cliff (posting #3081) shed no light on it at all, it seemed to be in the form of a riddle and I am as confused as ever. Are you able to explain in simple declaratory sentences exactly what transpired and the chronology? (BTW, growing 4 inches in a matter of, what, minutes, hours? qualifies as a "miracle" as I've defined it above)

Joy -

I accept your testimony at face value, but I'm sure you understand that, from my point of view, what you saw could equally well have been the product of an hallucination or a frontal lobe seizure or some such. It could also have been, in fact, an angel. But which explanation do you think this skeptic is going to accept?

I, like Cliff and Leszek I suspect, will require some sort of independent confirmation in the form of a scientifically testable and verifiable hypothesis in order to give myself over to total belief. And yet I do not disbelieve you (or others) when you claim these experiences.

Cliff, I don't think my sister is particularly happy preparing for the coming end times. She seems excessively preoccupied and downright scared, even though she's hoping she'll be raptured before it happens. I'm not as happy as many Christians claim to be, but I'm not afraid of death or non-existence, either.

Diane, I do like your attitutde that one religion is as good as another. Does that extend to no religion as well? I've always had a hard time with God consigning people to hellfire because they don't "believe." I daresay Slobodan Milosevik is a believing Christian, and the poor Albanians are Muslims. Like Hitler and the Jews. Whereas a lot of caring people are atheists.

Cliff, about the embryos. One idea floating around is that they should not be used for research for at least two years after they are created, so that the donation and the use are separated in time. I suppose they could be put up for adoption (assuming the biological parents agree, which I personally would not), and if no one wanted them after two years they could be used for research. Eventually most of them will wind up being flushed down the drain anyway, as the parents don't want to pay for cold storage forever.

Hmmm. It’s difficult for me to know what I can or can’t say in this public forum about that aspect (theft of life), as I’ve been having a problem with the definition of my status. Whenever they open an investigation they inform me that I am not allowed to say anything. Two investigations are still open. Two other complaints were investigated and then dismissed on technicalities, so I can speak about them, but one of the previously dismissed complaints is now criminal, and no one has informed me of my status in that.

If I am bound by a gag order, I must hold the status of full party. Statutes do allow me to appeal, and the Division of Administrative Hearings does specifically define me as a full party. But when I tried to obtain the records of the investigations, they told me the records aren’t "Public" and therefore could not be released to me. Suddenly I have no party status as either complainant or as next-of-kin, thus no access to the records necessary for appeal. I’m just the disinterested "Public."

I tried to mediate this through the General Counsel’s office, the Attorney General’s office, the Inspector General of the Department of Health and even through the Legislators who wrote the stupid law. They have all informed me I must challenge in court. That’s a Constitutional challenge, meaning it has to go to the Supreme Court. The issues are free speech and due process, and the law is clearly unconstitutional.

As you can tell, there are entire divisions of government out there actively trying to silence me. That tells you as much as I can tell you right now how highly placed the priesthood is, doesn’t it?

Dawn, I absolutely believe in Jesus' statement "By their fruits, ye shall know them". How a man conducts himself says a lot more than whatever religion he happens to proclaim. The Dalai lama said something like, "Kindness is my true religion. If a person has religion, that is good. But one can get by without it with kindness and compassion". Whether a person has a good heart is all that matters to me. I suspect God feels the same way, but of course, I could be wrong. :-)

Joy: I understand that you don't want to just come right out and state things baldly, in reference to your miracle. But I feel like I'm missing giant chunks of the story and can't make much sense of it.

My question is not so much HOW someone could grow 4 inches in a short time, but WHY. Have you any theories on that?

I fear I've already "outed" myself as the resident loon, so, in for a penny, in for a pound. :-)

I've had three experiences with people no longer in physical form -- my grandmother, my father, and a friend who died recently. In all three cases, the method of perception was the same: I didn't physically see or hear them, but pictures of them were "impressed" in my mind's eye. This feeling is hard to describe, but you're probably used to your own thoughts bubbling up from within...these come from outside of "self". There's a distinctly different feeling there.

The last time I talked to my friend Phyllis, who had lung cancer, was on January 1 of this year. Twice in the same week in early February, she "popped in" to my mind's eye as I was getting ready to sleep. She was so joyful and happy that it made me think she had passed away and was free from pain. I called her son and found out that she had died January 18.

A few days after my father died, my brother had a dream, in which my dad said, "I'm not as far away as you think I am". I think that is the case -- there is some sort of interface, a semi-permeable membrane, between that world, whatever it is, and this one.

Joy - Dianne and I appear to be in the same boat. Neither of us can quite make sense of what you've been able to tell us so far. So, we'll go from there and we shall see what we shall see.

Dianne -

Your last post: NEE-NEE NEE-NEE, NEE-NEE NEE-NEE!

P.S. Not to worry. Caiaphas won’t get away with it this time. I promise...

What I can attempt to tell you is the Miracle itself. Please bear with me, as I’ve actually never tried to write this down to anyone but me, and just highlights. It’s been a long row to hoe on everything else!

<<super big sigh>> here goes. It’s a 3-parter, but I’m in for the same pound, Dianne!

1 of 3

The first angel I saw was terrifying. 7 feet tall or more, rigidly upright and bold, so beautiful it made my eyes hurt looking at him. There were no "wings," but there was a lot of whiteness and light. In his presence it was like a hurricane, like the eye surrounded by a solid wall of wind and fury and sound and force. He spoke in a language none of us knew, but all of us understood.

"Who Are You?"

I’d demanded a Miracle. I demanded it because I figured God owed me one, and this is what greeted my demand. He reached out his hand and took me by the throat, so powerful he could easily have tossed me to my death or broken my neck with a flick of his wrist... "Who Are You?"

Within him, surrounded and overcome by him, was my son. Terribly broken, in the midst of the room... dancing with his death... trying to understand why he was still alive. So cold when the angel came we could see our breath. Voices from the wall of the hurricane... "Who Are You?"

"I am your mother," I said past the grip on my throat, standing on tiptoe and looking him straight in the eyes too frightened to cry, knowing both our lives were on the line. "I love you..."

2 of 3

The angel looked all the way through my soul, and it hurt. There are many things I’ve done or said in my life that I’m not proud of, and would not have an angel see. He saw them all. But what he saw most, the complete truth of my answer, was that I did most sincerely love my son.

Had I said anything else, I’d be dead too. Three grown men among the watchers held against the wall by the force of the wind-wall, unable to move toward us and intervene. The priest was crying.

In a sudden cacophany of light and wind and noise the angel was gone, and my son stood there with tears rolling down his cheeks. Now 4 inches taller than he was before, he hugged me. Alive. Whole. Love is the answer... God granted me the Miracle I’d demanded.

The temperature in this single hospital room that used to be a ward remained below freezing all night. Try as we might, no one could bring the temperature up despite the fact that it was May in New Orleans. We emptied the storeroom of blankets. The priest poured holy water on us and all around the bed, blessed us and cried. He was 72 years old, from Ireland. He gave me his crucifix and told me to stand guard. Which I did, even through the long night of voices and slumber that fell on everyone remaining.

3 of 3

The next morning they came to take us to the airport, and I accompanied my son to Florida on a twin-engine air ambulance. Home. We were diverted over the Gulf because the Navy lost a cruise missile in the panhandle that day, right into a thunderhead massing over the ocean. There were angels on the wings of the craft, the same powerful and beautiful angels... smiling this time. There was no turbulence despite buffeting wind and our tiny craft. I hate to fly, even on jumbo jets, but I wasn’t the least bit afraid. We were in the eye of the storm.

My son woke up in the midst of the lightning and looked for a long time out the window of the plane. "Do you see them?" he asked. I smiled. He turned toward the EMT sitting there in the tiny compartment with us and said very matter-of-factly that there were angels on the wing.

The EMT smiled back at him and said, "I know."

Later, after we’d landed and they were transferring my son to the ground unit, I complimented the pilot on such a smooth flight through obvious turbulence. He looked puzzled for a moment, then said with perfect innocence, "but there were angels on my wings. You didn’t see them?" We all laughed.

I’ve never spoken with the flight crew since, though I’ll find them in the process of writing this book. Such are things not easy to forget.

Thanks, Joy. I'm still missing what happened to your son prior to this?

Who do you think that angel was?

Larry: Very funny! Let's test your psychic ability...try to imagine what I'm thinking right now! :-)

Joy -

Whoa.....now THAT's a story! I shall not require you to defend your belief any longer. Certainly if something like that had happened to me, I'd be a believer.

I just want to be able to come to my own conclusions without someone beating me over the head with biblical quotations. You, of course, have NOT done this, but take a peek over on the Religion Today board. And, I guess, unless or until I experience something like what you experienced, I'm gonna go on requiring impossible documentation in order to change my mind.

(PS - I have to say this again: WOW, terrific story! And I don't mean "story" in the perjorative sense either.)

Dianne -

You're wondering "Where are all those commas I had lying about? Drat! Marie must have used them all!"

Am I right?

Ummm....close enough!

We need someone skilled at astral projection to go yank that key off of her keyboard!

A very bizarre accident, Dianne. He was strapped into his seat, passenger in a vehicle driven by his friend, first day out on the first away-from-folks adventure of his officially adult life. They had a campsite at a state park outside of town. Our son relived this for us that night, so we knew what happened even though the driver had explained he was looking back and didn’t see it. They’d missed the turn to the campground and were headed toward the lake.

When the driver realized he’d missed the turn and looked back, the truck drifted off the shoulder of the narrow state park road. There was a 4 inch dropoff to the shoulder, and a wooden speed limit sign dead ahead on a 4x4 post less than two feet off the road surface.

The passenger side mirror casing hit the sign, catapulting the mirror assembly. The mirror detached and flew into the passenger window. It hit our son right between the eyes, then bounced twice to shatter his face and skull into a million pieces, and flew back out the window. There was no other damage to the vehicle.

BTW... That priest was a physician until he was 56 years old. He just happened to be jogging through the park that afternoon, as the rectory was next door. He saved our son’s life by applying pressure to the left carotid. He stayed with us from that moment until we boarded the plane. He then presided at Mass (we’re not Catholic) when our son died 2 and a half months later.

If this happened to your child, and the hospital told you on the telephone that the only reason he’s hooked up is because he’s an organ donor on his driver’s license, what would you think when this 72-year old Irish priest walked up to you after driving at 80+ all night long? What would you think? Do? Would you tell God that Now Is The Time for that Miracle you didn’t get last time around? ...Would God hear you?

...And if He heard you, what might his Answer be?

Not easy. None of it has been easy. I've got a picture here at my terminal, blown up for trial but not allowed because it might "predudice the jury." He's 8 years old, black and white, watching something off-camera that obviously has him utterly awestruck.

They asked my husband what this depicted. We were cutting firewood in Capulin Canyon, had to lay in 7 cords or we'd freeze when winter hit... It was a very large but very dead Ponderosa Pine. I took that picture when our son saw the tree fall... His dad could do anything!

We couldn't save his life. We tried, but we couldn't do it. Everything else is denoument.

No I do not, Rosemary. I have not even the foggiest. If you know the reason, please tell me. No side issues, BTW. Just answer the question. The question is: why would a "personal God" fail to make his presence known to all people in an unmistakable manner? Why would he purposefully deny humanity a single shred of evidence of his existence, and then demand absolute belief and trust nevertheless? Is he truly interested in communicating only with the gullible? It makes no sense to me, and as a result, I tend not to believe in a "personal God."

So tell me why, Rosemary--if you can.

Joy, I have read your three parter and found it incredibly interesting. Other than the existence of Angels in the room, I am not sure I would see anything therein that must necessarily be supernatural. I understand you believe your son was healed. (But the body is known to be capable of healing itself.) As for the temperature in the room, I somehow got the sense that you did not mean that the temperature was actually less than 32 degrees Fahrenheit, but rather that people in the room felt particularly cold and could not get warm that night. (It is not unusual, nor outside physical laws, for one person to be sweating due to a perceived elevated temperature while another person in the same room might be "freezing to death.")

The other part is that you once said that your son bled to death in your arms and I believe you indicated on another occasion that it was due to an accident. I guess my question, at this point would be: After your son was healed, was there a separate accident that took his life?

That is not quite correct, Joy. According to John, they were mainly afraid that Jesus would excite the people to rebel against the Romans, and bring the anger of the Romans down upon them all. The miracle, itself, of raising Lazarus from the dead, did not seem to be of much importance to the priests, nor the Pharisees. It is also interesting that this story does not appear in the synoptic gospels. One would think that an occurrence as profound as this would scarcely be overlooked in any of the gospels--unless this particular story was invented after the other gospels had already been told.

Interesting description, Dianne. I do not believe I have ever heard it described quite that way before. I must say I am impressed with your apparent honesty.

Thanks for not simply telling me it was a mass hallucination, Cliff! It’s a complex story. The miraculous part lasted for 2 and a half months, until his life was deliberately stolen. I honestly don’t know the exact temperature, but it was cold enough to see our breath. When the nursing staff couldn’t find anything wrong with the air conditioning they refused to come into the room for any reason. I attributed that to superstition (or maybe experience)... it was New Orleans, after all.

We do have a great deal of documented evidence in records, films and testimony on all aspects of this story. The bad part happened once we got home and found ourselves at the mercy of what has been described as a "nest of vipers." As I said, I’m not clear yet about how much I am allowed to say because regulatory and criminal investigations are ongoing.

I’m not concerned about whether the story of Lazarus is or is not verifiable historically. The passage in John 12 (9-11) describing the plot against his life depicts a perfectly believable response from the priesthood to a threat to their power. Human nature hasn’t changed much in 2,000 years.

Gee, Dianne, I didn’t ask who he was. He asked who I was!

I wasn’t exactly in a position to make any demands, as he had me by the neck at the time. The angel was surrounding my son’s body, but at the same time it wasn’t him. This being was clearly not the broken and bruised and critically injured young man who had just relived his horrendous accident and lost consciousness.

I was supporting him, trying to get him toward the bed or keep him from falling when my husband and son in law moved toward us to help. That’s when the sort of wind-wall (bad description, I realize) pinned them and the angel appeared. He was huge and brilliant and beautiful and powerful and very, very frightening. His voice was thunderous, his command absolute, and he wasn’t speaking any language we’d ever heard before. Still, we understood what he said.

I wonder if there’s a creative writing class at the local community college that could teach me how to better describe something like this... I’m not doing a very good job of it, am I?

Joy, you write beautifully. I'm just having trouble grasping the idea of an angel who would grab you by the neck. The archangel Michael presents himself in a fearsome way, I've read, so I was just wondering about that. But still that seems out of keeping with everything I've read about angels.

Cliff, thank you for the apparent compliment! :-)

Larry, you can cue the Twilight Zone music again...

I forgot another part of the story about my friend Phyllis. She spent her last month or so at her older son's house in S. Carolina. Her younger son, the one I know, lives in Atlanta. On the day she died, he was at work and got the clear message that he had to leave and go to his mother. He left work early and drove several hours, getting there at 7:30. She died at 9:30.

I don't know who whispered in his ear, an angel, God, or Phyllis herself, but someone urged him to get there in time to be there when she died.

And one more...

I recently got a new cat. I was trying to come up with a name for him and couldn't find one that fit, until one morning last week. I looked at him and the word "Chance" popped to mind. It fit him, especially since I'd given him a second chance, rescuing him from a shelter, so it stuck.

This morning I called my mom, who lives thousands of miles from me, and mentioned Chance's new name. She said, "Oh, I was reading a book last week and the hero's name was Chance. I almost called you to suggest that for your cat!"

I realize that could very well be a coincidence, but, for the sake of illustrating a point, I'm going to view it differently.

I think that we are connected to our loved ones by some mechanism, which I would guess to be energetic in nature. Eastern philosophy speaks of "cords" connecting us. What if information frequently travels back and forth over these "phone lines", on a very subtle level? And I picked up the name "Chance" from my mom, without being aware of it?

Dianne, I think "chance" may be stretching it a tad. Life if full of coincidences. Often they sound contrived, but really happen. And that, in itself, is nothing significant. It is actually part of the ordinary in the sense that coincidences happens all the time and it is perfectly natural for them to happen.

Still, there does seem to be remarkable components of some of what you say.

Dianne, sorry but your premise, "but, for the sake of illustrating a point, I'm going to view it differently," did not register with me until after I posted.

I see now that I was just agreeing with you. The real question is: when does the "coincidence" end and the "remarkable" begin.

There is no current physical evidence of "cords" connecting us, but somehow, they seem to exist. In that context, I might mention that it is sometimes possible to scientifically demonstrate the existence of an effect before the cause of the effect is found. Cheers.

Dianne, I have been giving some thought to the illustration that Dawn gave of the identical twins that could "finish each other's sentences, etc," But "when we tested their ability to trasmit what card they were holding from another room, they couldn't do it."

Two things. First, things are not always as they seem. Second, sometimes people do things without knowing how they do it. (For example, I once knew a kid who was a excellent natural hitter in baseball, but when he started thinking about how he did it, he got his swing so screwed up he couldn't hit at all.)

It would appear that the twins to which Dawn referred have a particular capability that is remarkable. But sometimes, things are not as they seem. Perhaps they merely know each other very well and do a good job of anticipating each other. When they guess right, it seems remarkable. And perhaps, also, since they may enjoy the attention, they have learned to hide the misses.

On the other hand, it seems very possible that the twins can do something naturally without knowing how they do it. If they actually knew what they did and how they did it, they might be able to do it at will, repeatably, in a manner that could be scientifically investigated to show the "cords" to which you refer actually do exist! But since they do not know how they do it, it is only when they relax and do it "naturally" that it works.

I think I know what you think, but tell me anyway.

Anyone else care to comment?

I didn’t ask, but if it was Michael he’s spectacular! The first angel was far more threatening than any others I encountered (2 on the wings and 3 at death). He was obviously there to challenge me directly, and wanted me to know he was serious. I didn’t argue.

I wasn’t bruised or choked, it was a position of indisputable power over me. I’d made a demand of God. Not a prayer or a petition, but a demand. I’d guess the angel was there to deliver God’s demand to me. Had I responded in any way other than with courage and honesty, I do not doubt he’d have killed me on the spot. I would have deserved it.

The manifestation is perfectly appropos considering who we are. I am a warrior, from a long line of warriors. Our son was a warrior too. Michael is chief of the angelic warriors. We are familiar with death and with the adversary. My demand was that my son not die THIS WAY. Death is not the enemy... but what warrior wants to die in a freak accident while on leave rather than bravely in defense of all he holds dear?

Ultimately, that was the real miracle. The opportunity for one last battle. It’s not over yet, but by addressing the subsequent evil with courage and honesty, we can right a very large wrong and positively effect millions of people (even if they never know how or why). That’s a good epitaph for a warrior.

I suppose it is of no specific consequence, Joy, but I am suddenly curious as to the branch of the armed forces to which your son was attached.

Cliff might be thinking that because I’d expect a warrior angel, a warrior angel is what I saw. He’d be absolutely right, because in battle, fat baby putti would have been rather ludicrous. God’s got a sense of humor (duck billed platypi, for instance), but he’s not that sarcastic.

You ask why God doesn’t reveal himself so obviously to everyone, and that’s a legitimate question if you don’t understand the nature of evil or why it came about that we are here on this godforesaken planet and not in paradise. Nobody can condemn skepticism in a world like this.

But if, for argument’s sake, you were to accept that I really did meet this angel, it might tell you something important. Up to that moment I’d never seen an angel either, but you know me. I don’t automatically discount floating stones, so why would I discount an angel that’s got me by the neck? I had to deal with him on his terms. Even if my own nature defined those terms.

I’d never demanded anything from God, but I couldn’t risk a yes or no petition when it came to my son’s life. I never doubted my demand would be granted, but I did know there would be a price to pay. I was willing to pay it, even with my own life.

So while it is probably true that my expectations defined the encounter, the encounter was no less real. Faith, as Rosemary has stated many times, isn’t all sweetness and light, just like angels aren’t all fat babies or beautiful virgins. Life’s no easier for the faithful than it is for nonbelievers. That’s the nature of life. If more people of faith encounter angels or miracles or inspiration than nonbelievers, there is nothing surprising. It does not skew the data. If twins "read" each other more often than strangers, that doesn’t skew the data either. The data is the data.

Wow, Joy, but I think you give me too much credit. Actually, I think Leszek is more skeptical than me. And neither of us are, in my opinion, really hard nosed about it. Remember Bernhard?

I notice you did not answer the question, but, instead, chose to attack my understanding of evil. In regards to that, Joy, I must say that I am not at all certain that your understanding of the nature of evil is superior to mine in any way, shape or form, regardless of what you may think. And I think your understanding of why we are on this planet is probably no more insightful than mine. Now, could you please answer the question--if you can?

I think my acceptance or nonacceptance of your experience is probably non-consequential. I accept that is it possible that you saw an angel, and I accept that the occurrence, as you remember it, was, and is, very real and very important to you.

As I said earlier, I am certain the encounter was real to you. And actually, perhaps that is all we can ever expect. After all, what is real? For example, is this post I have written real? Well, it seems real to me, so I guess it is. Maybe it seems real to you also.

Precisely, Joy. But the big question is: what is the data? For some strange reason, I have a feeling that we will soon know a great deal more about this. Don't know why, but I have a feeling it will happen soon.

Rosemary said: Cliff, I think you know the reason why God doesn't twist anyone's arm...

Cliff said: No I do not, Rosemary. I have not even the foggiest. If you know the reason, please tell me. No side issues, BTW. Just answer the question. The question is: why would a "personal God" fail to make his presence known to all people in an unmistakable manner? Why would he purposefully deny humanity a single shred of evidence of his existence, and then demand absolute belief and trust nevertheless? Is he truly interested in communicating only with the gullible? It makes no sense to me, and as a result, I tend not to believe in a "personal God." So tell me why, Rosemary--if you can.

Cliff, OK, but I must say I'm surprised. I'll make this personal, it's easier, although things don't always happen as chronologically as one would like. First I had a big battle [in my mind] as to whether or not everything just IS, or whether there was a possibility of a Creator. While I'm considering it, I read widely. In the Christian Bible, I come across an account from a supposed Creator that I find to be totally silly .. so silly that I still don't think 'man' thought it up, they could do better. This book suggests that a Creator made this world, and included in it two people, a male and female. They lived happily with their Creator, they were made in His image but were nevertheless created, not Creator. I personally think they could have lived that way forever. The Creator asked them not to eat the fruit of one particular tree. [continued.]

Along came the serpent [or if you'd prefer, the suggestion in the mind] .. "Did God REALLY say you can't eat the fruit from any of the trees?" It's insidious isn't it, a suggestion like that? The seed of distrust .. that moment is the Fall as far as I'm concerned, they didn't trust God's Word. But I'm fairly sure you know the rest of that story. Well, the reason God doesn't twist anyone's arm, is that we must regain that ability to trust.

You would not suggest I was a bad parent if I told my children that if they ran out onto the road they might be killed by a vehicle, because it's a FACT. Well lets suppose that a Creator CANNOT be in the presence of a lack of trust. The nearest picture I can think of is those blue lights they used to have in butchers shops, the flies in the shop are drawn to the light, but if they touch it .. zzzz .. one dead fly. The light doesn't have any say in the matter, that's what happens when a fly and the light come into contact. I say all this because you suggest in your post that I am 'gullible.' I'm not offended, please don't apologise, but I'd like the opportunity to reply. What I did when I was 'researching' .. is accept at face value, and not easily or indeed quickly, that what I was being told might be fact and true .. and if that makes me gullible, well so be it. [continued]

I believe that God cannot be in the presence of a lack of trust, someone who is separate, or in sin. I hesitate to use that word, because I think it's misunderstood. Sin is separation from God because you do not believe Him, nor trust His Word. Both things can be illustrated in the story of the giving of the Ten Commandments in Exodus. Anyone who touches Mount Sinai while God was present will die, so "Moses, put up a barrier." [Like the one in the Garden I presume.] He makes a Covenant with them. "If you obey me FULLY, and keep my Covenant, you will be my treasured possession." Please notice Cliff, this BEFORE He gives them the "Ten Commandments," and AFTER they are redeemed. I've left Jesus out of this answer, even though He's central to the problem, because you requested no side issues. I note that you believe there is not "one single shred of evidence to His existence." If God gave you the complete and empirical proof that you request Cliff, if He twisted your arm behind your back and said .. "Believe, there is no alternative," you would be unable to demonstrate any trust, any faith, any thing at all. Hope I made sense.

Several things, Rosemary.

First, you say you were "researching," but never explain why--as an atheist--you would do such a thing. Second, when you found the account from a Creator "that I find to be totally silly .. so silly that I still don't think 'man' thought it up," you nevertheless, you say you decided to "accept at face value" but, again, you do not explain why you would believe something so "silly." You then say that "the reason God does not twist anyone's arm, is that we must regain that ability to trust."

My question is: why would you consider trust in the unknown to be desirable or of value to anyone or anything? Trust in the unknown seems rather dubious to me.

You give an example of a parent telling a child not to run out into the street, but it seems to goes nowhere. The next thought, as I read it, is the suggestion that if God was in the presence of "lack of trust" he might die. (Actually, I really find it extremely difficult to believe you actually intended that and suspect that you intended to say instead that if a non-believer was in the presence of God, the non-believer would die. This seems to be supported by your next illustration with respect to Mount Sinai and the ten commandments.)

And finally you tell me that if God manifested himself to me in an unmistakable manner, I would be unable to demonstrate my trust and faith in him.

But Rosemary, isn't that the problem :-) Until God manifests himself in an unmistakable manner, it seems to me that I am in a holding pattern, an agnostic, neither believing nor not believing.

Cheers.

Cliff, Now that's a tough one ..

I know I had begun to think more deeply about things, but I was content with my life, there were no tragedies or anything. I've always been an avid reader, and I remember that prophecy played a part in it all somewhere because I was reading a book about Nostradamus, and was disappointed to find out that much of what he is purported to have said [because it's very difficult to know exactly what he meant] had in fact it's origin in the Bible. But exactly what the catalyst was that started the search I can't say. From todays vantage point, I'd say "God prompted me," a subjective remark that won't help you to understand at all. I'm sorry I can't tell you anything clearer. I quite understand if you want to label me 'whacko.'

That's because it's very difficult to give you any understanding of 3 or 4 years of searching and study. For the first two years at least, although I kept reading, I was more anti than pro .. and gradually that began to change. The Bible is an amazing book, I cannot get over it's breadth and depth, it's very exciting fitting the bits of the puzzle into the larger picture. [continued.]

And I think I told you [or someone] that the JW's played a part by telling me Jesus wasn't Divine. I'm naturally 'contrary' I think, I intensely dislike someone telling me something, I like to find out for myself. He is definitely at the heart of my faith, if you can show me where I'm mistaken in my faith in Him, then I'll be right back where I started. My faith has taken some knocks while I've been on this board, and sometimes I've wanted to run away, but my faith has become stronger. Not because I've found answers to everything, but because I haven't found a convincing alternative to the 'hope' I have. If it helps, there was a time when doubt was strong within me, I can't remember exactly when, about 2 years after the above, and I examined the alternatives in as much depth as I could at that time, and I decided that as a matter of my own 'will' or willpower,' I WOULD believe, because the alternatives were too terrible to contemplate. Perhaps that's a key to it, perhaps I'm just a wuss.

Exactly, that's why it's called faith I think, although I prefer Peter's term .. 'hope.' I have a feeling I would have liked Peter enormously, he would open his mouth and put his foot in it, rushing in where Angels fear to tread would describe him. Not a huge intellect, rather a down to earth chap who worked physically very hard for a living, not the sort to be easily fooled, but immensely loyal as a friend. I feel he's a man I could have hugged. OTOH, Matthew has probably taught me more, but I don't get the same sense of his warmness as a human being. [cont]

Cliff, final ..

Well, as you said in an earlier post, perhaps that's about to change one way or the other. It seems to me, for what it's worth, that you listen, [many don't] and ask hard questions of all posters indiscriminately. That to me at least, indicates someone who is honest and thinking, I suspect you'll make a decision one way or the other one day, rather than remain in your holding pattern. Hope you'll share the process, it will be very interesting, but I don't think it will be easy.

Perhaps there's a scientific discovery just around the corner that will be the catalyst. It was often little seemingly insignificant things that got through to me. Remember when the Disciples were in the boat in the storm, it says they were afraid. After Jesus calmed that storm, it says they were terrified .. wonder why?

Rosemary, Cliff

C. P. Snow pointed out in 1959 that there were two cultures, the literary and the scientific, between which there was little communication - the public intellectuals and political leaders were and largely still are drawn from the literary elite. Of course, he was taking about Britain which is a relatively secular nation compared with the religiosity of the United States, and here I'd say the two cultures are science and religion, with two very different epistemological perspectives.

Your exchange above sort of underlines the dichotomy between the way followers of science know the world, and the way people of faith do - I'm not saying it's impossible to blend the two views, just that very often in debates we crystallize into one camp or the other. On the one hand, the "ideal" scientist doesn't actually know anything until data have been collected and a variety of explanations tested, and even then, only accepts the most likely explanation provisionally, aware that a better one might show up later - for a scientist, uncertainty and probability are a way of life; on the other, the "ideal" religious believer thinks that doubt in his or her god is displeasing to their deity, and that the existence of said deity is a given premise for all subsequent knowledge. (In practise, most people straddle the camps to some extent.)

The problem is one cannot know god through science (though many would say that as science is the exploration of god's handiwork, one might be able to figure out a few things about the way god thinks), and one cannot know the world through religion. I think these two modes of seeing and knowing are fundamentally unreconcileable, and we struggle to make them complementary as best we can, even though they are uncomfortable bed-fellows. And we often end up talking past each other, because we do not really understand the concepts in one another's minds.

I used to be a devout catholic many moons ago, and I couldn't really fathom the atheist mind-set... it was obvious to me that atheism was wrong. Once I made the transition to atheism and the scientific world-view, I could no longer fathom the thought processes of a believer, even though I owned those thoughts at one time.

It's a little, I think, like the Necker cube phenomenon. If you draw a wire-frame depiction of a 3-D cube on a 2-D piece of paper and look at it, your perspective shifts reversibly, suddenly and without reason, from looking down on the cube, to looking up at it. At no time can you view the two perspectives simultaneously - you can sometimes force the change, but never see the two views at once. Close-up pictures of the lunar surface are similar. Even when you know it's a crater you are looking at, the impression you may get is of a raised mound, rather than a depression, then all of a sudden your mind switches to view it in the correct perspective.

There may be a similar problem in trying to hold contradictory ideas... we have to compartmentalize them to some extent, and some of us live in one compartment more than in another. I'm not convinced that science and religion can be completely melded, or that they are complementary sides of a coin. I think they are two separate coins (or cubes) :)

You are most certainly not a whacko, Rosemary, and I would prefer that you not say such things. I think the answer you gave here: "God prompted me," is adequate. You do not step on my toes when you say that, and I think it makes sense from your point of view.

But, of course, I'm totally different. I love for people to tell me what to think :-)

I have strongly suspected, from the beginning, that your faith would survive.

Yes, I do delight in asking hard questions. On the other hand, my answers are always soft. But, unless God choose to manifest himself to me in an unmistakable manner, I see no reason to change.

<giggle> I miss Bernhard quite a bit, Cliff. He was so predictably grumpy and had such great one-liners. Reminded me a lot of my Father-in-law...

This forum is so valuable to me because of skepticism. I’ve admitted that I’ve got a scientific background and that I tend to investigate the nature and reality of unusual things I encounter. Just answering the questions that occurred to me, which would naturally occur to you and Leszek as well. The truth is important to me in this, and the truth should be investigated as thoroughly as possible. I have tons of physical evidence for the objective aspects, but you are right that the same kind of evidence cannot exist for the subjective experiences. It will be testimony alone, to be judged partially by the thoroughness and quality of the physical investigations.

That’ll be quite a piece of work, so again I thank you and all the other participants for letting me bounce preliminaries off your heads! §:o)

It’s a very tough question, but maybe a partial explanation is found in the fact that there is such a question to be asked. If we all knew the answer, life on this planet would be something entirely different from what it demonstrably "Is." Perhaps at some point in the march of history the answer will be forthcoming, God will reveal himself unmistakably to everyone, and the world will change its nature. I’m not holding my breath, but if it happens in my lifetime it won’t take me by surprise.

That’s about the best I can do, because I’ve honestly never NOT believed in God. I’ve rejected more than a few religious belief systems in my time, and I reject many Christian interpretations and areas of focus too. God remains just as real to me and in me, even though I have met large evils in this world and know that life is tragically unfair. If all humans knew God there would be no darkness, thus no need for light to shine in the darkness. Manifestation is duality-based. I can accept that without rejecting the opposite concept of one-ness.

Yes, I think it is the same with all of us. Change seems difficult, and yet many of us can point to changes in our lives of a fundamental nature. I guess it can't be that difficult. I love your analogy of the Necker cube phenomenon. As you say: "your perspective shifts reversibly, suddenly and without reason, from looking down on the cube, to looking up at it. At no time can you view the two perspectives simultaneously - you can sometimes force the change, but never see the two views at once."

In my own case, the change had to do with an observation of the mounting evidence I was collecting that the Devil was an invention, and, therefore, could not possibly exist as a real entity. Once I saw that the Devil was an invention, discarding any notions of the Devil came easy. Good riddance. I didn't need him anyway. What was difficult for me was the notion that God might also not exist. That took some time, and there was some "rapid shifting back and forth" between belief and non-belief, before a "final" resolution of the conflict in non-belief, more or less, occurred.

We’ll soon (relatively speaking) know more about some of the physical data as certain aspects of the overall case move through the system, yes. Though public knowledge is something I can’t answer to. Not one word was printed in the local or regional press about this 2-week trial despite coverage of every other trial going on in the same courthouse at the same time. I’ve mentioned that there is a good deal of confusion in this case about what is public record and what is not public record, which will include a challenge to the law.

I expect there are a number of restrictions eminating from high places designed to keep things under wraps. The whole mess may end up being swept under the rug as far as general knowledge, and that’s why I can say it doesn’t really matter if the public ever knows who, how or why the necessary changes to the system have been wrought. They will benefit, and that’s good enough for me. I’m in it for justice, not glory.

I think you’re right that science and religion deal with entirely separate levels of human experience, Leszek. But I don’t think its impossible for one human being to view the physical world in scientific terms and the spiritual realm in religious terms at the same time. All it takes is a basic grasp that these are indeed separate realms of experience.

Sure, the scientific mindset is going to impress itself on the spiritual belief system to some extent and will tend to reject literal interpretations of what can just as easily be interpreted allegorically. There are denominations which view scripture in this way, so do not require adherents to check their intelligence at the door.

Likewise, the spiritual belief system is likely to impress itself on the physical existence to a certain extent. A geneticist who believes in God may see the DNA structure he is decoding as a masterful work of infinite intelligence and design, and attribute that intelligent design to God. A particle physicist who believes in God may see the bizarre and fascinating subatomic world as God’s greatest joke and very much enjoy the good humor it represents. A theoretical astrophysicist who believes in God may see the universe and all its spectacular perfection as the Elegant Equation of God, and be awestruck. There’s nothing wrong with this melding in either direction, is there?

Joy, I think you misunderstood my intent in one respect. I was not talking about your case specifically when I said that I have a feeling we will soon know a great deal more. I am sure it was my fault for not making it clear, but I was referring ESP, what Dianne calls a 'sixth sense." I think that, with appropriate research, there are things of an objective nature about ESP that can be discovered, and I think this type of research is becoming more acceptable within the scientific community. I think that with greater acceptance, more scientific work will be done in this area.

Actually the thing that most amazes me is your statement: "Not one word was printed in the local or regional press about this 2-week trial despite coverage of every other trial going on in the same courthouse at the same time." Now that is astounding. A two week trial that involves "miracles" that is not covered at all by the news media? Now that is hard to believe. I assume the trial was a civil trial, and civil trials tend to receive less coverage than criminal trials--but even so. It was a public trial, was it not?

Oops! Sorry, Cliff. Guess that tells you where my head is at! Data is data on the subject of extrasensory perception as well, so I’m not sure how new research will clarify anything. Heck, if they’d just release the mass of long-term government research that is currently classified, there might not be all that many questions left unanswered.

On the rest, yes it was civil and no, there was no coverage. There has never been coverage, though in the past 5 years it has been shuffled through 2 circuit courts, 4 judges and 3 trial dates. I don’t even have a transcript yet. I’d hope it’s now public, but because some of the testimony related to matters still under official investigation there’s some confusion.

But it’s not like the press didn’t know about it. The foundation through which the Constitutional challenge will be filed is made up of publishers and station managers mostly. The local press corps knows us personally very well. My husband and son were prominent celebrities for 10 years before our son died. His funeral generated front page color and a 2-page story, broadcast coverage on all three network affiliates.

The problem is the prominence and power of the defendants and the sheer ugliness of what everyone basically knows in their hearts to be true. The moment the first word is printed in the local paper or broadcast over the local airwaves motive looms large. There are other complications as well.

I understand the kid gloves, but at this point we’re looking at some serious obstruction of justice. It took us nearly 7 years to bring the suit to trial due to serious obstruction. I’ve got state and federal officials sitting on evidence relating to criminality that I have every right and reason to obtain. And I’ve got a very questionable ruling on the first day of trial which allowed the defense to reverse its pleadings - thus the original response to claim - and which prevented us from presenting our prepared case to the jury.

So now it goes to the appellate level. Keeps it inside those proverbial "smoke filled rooms" where the real decisions are made. Maybe that’s how it’s got to be, so I’m not really complaining. As long as justice prevails everything will be hunky dory.

Amen on the shifting part... me too. I finally came to realization that if science was in fact pointing the way I thought it was, there was no need for an involved god... god, if he existed at all, could be relegated to the role of prime mover, and after that, things evolved without assistance. While technically, if you push me into a corner I will take refuge upon agnosticism, for I do not believe it is possible to prove god's existence or otherwise, in practise, I am atheist, because of convenience in large part, but also because the character I read into god from his handiwork is not a character I think is interested in being worshipped. And I suspect that if there is, or was, a prime mover, he probably doesn't care whether we like him or not :) ...assuming he even knows that among the bacteria and fungi of a small blue-green world in the middle of nowhere, we exist.

First, that misunderstanding was not your fault, Joy. I saw you reference to the "twins," which referred to an earlier exchange with Dianne, and it did not occur to me that you might misinterpret my comment about that as applying to your specific case. But it is clear to me that it was my responsibility to clarify--not yours to read my mind.

I don't think that will happen anytime soon, Joy, and I think it is probably just as well. It is my best understanding, that much of that research, performed during the cold war, involved what are now illegal drugs, such as LSD. It was a dirty business, of course, but it appears that the researchers were charged with looking for any advantage they could find, on any level, and I think it is reasonable to suspect that they attempted to accelerate the process by using drugs. Thus, I am not sure I would trust that research, anyway.

I basically agree with most of what you say, Leszek, but I have a somewhat different perspective on this subject. Some people, actually both sides, but more often atheists, have accused me of intellectual dishonesty for calling myself an agnostic. But the way I see it is that there is no way that I can know of certainty that God does exist or that he does not exist. Thus, I most certainly seem to be an agnostic. And I do not understand the "convenience" you associate with the term "atheist." One of the main reasons that I so proudly wear the title of agnostic is that I avoid specific association with some of the more obnoxious and intolerant people I have met on these boards who call themselves atheists.

It seems to me that the agnostics that I have met tend to be much more tolerant of opposing points of view than people who identify themselves as atheists, and I tend to prefer being associated with tolerant people.

I’m not so sure I’d discount the data generated through the years of intensive research on those levels, Cliff. What happened with LSD happened with just a few of the experimental drugs - going public, that is, because the research was farmed through Universities rather than government laboratories or private industry for a time. I’m sure you’ve heard the term "designer drug." These are synthesized alkaloids designed to activate or enhance the operation of particular (targeted) areas of the brain, and the areas related to this sort of research were mapped a long time ago.

There are drugs which can induce any state of mind one might wish to induce, and these are highly efficient for their intended purposes. I once met a chemist with an pharmaceutical company who processed a research shipment once a year of a telepathic agent from England. He gave me a pretty good description. It was so receptor-friendly that once the subject had been introduced to the first dose, any further dosage necessary to produce the same effect was microscopic. Seems the brain would go into overdrive and synthesize its own supply, as it does with endorphins. He also assured me very credibly that it worked precisely as designed.

You’ve never heard of it, so it obviously didn’t get out to the drug culture. Indescriminate reading of other people’s minds could be unpleasant in mixed company...

Joy, I don't know what to say. First you tell me the research performed over the years should not be ignored, and then you explain in no uncertain terms why it is not valid.

How so not valid, Cliff? Brain research (on all levels) is a lot like cell and genetic research in that it holds a large component of chemistry in addition to energy mapping and physical examination. A spate of psychocomplacents (my term) like Prozac have replaced the crude sedatives of the ‘70s and ‘80s. Public release requires years of rigorous testing, so development can be safely presumed to be 15-25 years ago.

Some experience would tell you the rest. Suffice it to say that most of what needs to be known is already known. It just isn’t public knowledge yet.

This board is beginning to sound like "Conspiracy Theory!" Neuroscience is the next scientific frontier, and is today in about the same place as genetics was in 1953, the discovery of DNA. Since the pace of research is accelerating so fast, I think there will be interesting answers about how the mind works coming along in the next decade or two.

Cliff, you are probably the only person who is interested in non-ESP matters, but there are 70 House members who are signing on to a bill to extend the ban on federal funding of human embryo research to stem cells derived from the embryos, and there is a strong "Right to Life" push to ban private research in this area as well. I spoke to a woman who said in all seriousness that she would quit her chemotherapy if the drug she was taking was developed using fetal or embryonic tissue (it wasn't). Once the Balkan war is over, look for this to become a hot political issue.

Hi Dawn,

You know me. I can get interested in most anything that comes along. I suppose you noticed that I was holding my own with the "conspiracy theory" and the "promise of ESP" :-)

Actually, you are not quite right about me and you being the only ones interested in non-ESP issues. I think Leszek is not particularly interested in ESP--but he really perks up when someone mentions evolution. Been meaning to ask him about some of the happenings in evolution lately. Things have been hopping on that front lately. But have been pretty well pinned down by first Dianne and Rosemary, and then Joy. (But hey, I don't mind :-)

As for human embryo research funding, I guess there really isn't much I can do about that--or, actually, anything else on a global scale :-)

But, unfortunately, I think you are right, at least for the short term. I guess we shall see.

I’m sorry for seeming single-minded, Dawn. I’m interested in any issues you have on stem cell research. I’ve been steeped in brain research for years, so that’s what I know.

First to give you a given, I do not like abortion. I’ve never met anyone who does like it. The stem cell controversy will soon be rectified by cloning and chemical triggers. At the same time, I recognize the value of the research, so I’m somewhere in between on the current issue. I’m an organ donor.

It seems to me that there’s a lot we don’t know. The Genome Project is interesting, but potentially a political and social nightmare. We know how evil we are, so we don’t trust us. That’s something I’ve tried to address several times here. For me, it boils down to knowledge. The fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil. We’re not clear on the separate definitions yet, but we’re full steam ahead anyway. It cannot be otherwise, and that’s why a forum so well-reasoned as this is so useful.

ICARUS

International Journal of Solar System Studies

Volume 138, Number 1, March 1999

1 Editorial: Introduction to the Special Section on Results from the Mars Telescopic Observations II Workshop

Jim Bell

3 Telescopic Observations of Mars, 1996-1997: Results of the Marswatch Program

D. C. Parker, J. D. Beish, D. M. Troiani, D. P. Joyce, and C. E. Hernandez

20 Martian Polar Cap 1996-1997

Kyosuke Iwasaki, Donald C. Parker, Steve Larson, and Tokuhide Akabane

25 Near-Infrared Imaging of Mars from HST: Surface Reflectance, Photometric Properties, and Implications for MOLA Data

James F. Bell III, Michael J. Wolff, Thomas C. Daley, David Crisp, Philip B. James, Steven W. Lee, John T. Trauger, and Robin W. Evans

36 Infrared Spectral Imaging of Martian Clouds and Ices

David R. Klassen, James F. Bell III, Robert R. Howell, Paul E. Johnson, William Golisch, Charles D. Kaminski, and David Griep

49 Minimal Aerosol Loading and Global Increases in Atmospheric Ozone during the 1996-1997 Martian Northern Spring Season

R. Todd Clancy, Michael J. Wolff, and Philip B. James

64 North Polar Dust Storms in Early Spring on Mars

Philip B. James, Jeffery L. Hollingsworth, Michael J. Wolff, and Steven W. Lee

74 Temperature and Gas Production Distributions on the Surface of a Sperical Model Comet Nucleus in the Orbit of 46P/Wirtanen

Achim Enzian, Jürgen Klinger, Gerhard Schwehm, and Paul R. Weissman

85 The Dependence of the Circumnuclear Coma Structure on the Properties of the Nucleus. III. First Modeling of a CO-Dominated Coma, with Application to Comets 46 P/Wirtanen and 29 P/Schwassmann-Wachmann I

J. F. Crifo, A. V. Rodionov, and D. Bockelée-Morvan

107 Optical Properties of Nonspherical Particles of Size Comparable to the Wavelength of Light: Application to Comet Dust

Padmavati A. Yanamandra-Fisher and Martha S. Hanner

129 Polarimetric Observations of Small Asteroids: Preliminary Results

A. Cellino, R. Gil Hutton, E. F. Tedesco, M. Di Martino, and A. Brunini

141 Transport and Mixing in Jupiter's Stratosphere Inferred from Comet S-L9 Dust Migration

A. James Friedson, Robert A. West, Amy K. Hronek, Nicholas A. Larsen, and Neal Dalal

Leszek, I feel as if you've finally answered my long ago post vis-à-vis the similarities versus the differences. Trouble is, the following describes me to a 'T.'

That is what I was trying to explain to Cliff, but you put it so much better. That while I'm aware of the argument that the Bible is 'tainted' by the hand of man, it's mysteries are so deep that no one has yet plumbed it's depths. My investigation of it continues to add little bits of the puzzle that fit into the whole. As I said before, I don't think any of us has got all the answers, well I certainly haven't, but I hope we can retain some form of communication, such that will enable us to talk about our respective points of view and promote understanding in some way. It certainly helped me to read your recent posts. BTW, you are spot on with the perspective shift description, although perhaps you left out the frustration that can occur. My sons brought home some 'Magic Eye' prints, they look like rather repetitive pictures, they told me to stare at it and I'd see another picture inside the first. Well it took ages, and my sons got quite frustrated while they waited for mum to open her eyes and look at it properly, but suddenly it was there. I'd like to continue trying to cross those barriers that I may have erected in my mind.

Yup on both counts... it's not that I'm uninterested in ESP, it's just that that ball's been kicked around for generations with no substantive results. I don't mind discussing stem cell research either... I really have no objection to it, but there are certainly limits I would place on huma embryological research... somewhere around the time where the organization of a recognizable brain begins.

BTW, I think most of the atheists I've seen on this site are actually agnostic... atheism is a flag of convenience because in making concrete day-to-day decisions - do I say my prayers, do I go to church? - you can't sit on the fence. I suppose I could go to church and not pray, but that seems like a cop-out, as well as a major inconvenience, and would convince nobody, least of all god! :) I could live my life with god, or live it without, but trying to deal with a neither-one-thing-nor-another situation just isn't practical for me (another necker cube thing). That doesn't mean I am convinced there isn't a god, but I am convinced there isn't a god who needs or wants to be worshipped.

Ah, the meat-eating hominid Australopithecus garhi... very interesting. The problem I have with all the australopithecine fossils is that there are so many of them it's hard to know which were on the "main line" of human ancestry and which weren't. For example, with Homo erectus, it's the only fossil around spanning the gap between earlier Homo species and more modern humans, so its ancestral position is much less in doubt. We're looking at a number of branches in the human evolutionary bush and trying to figure out where the forks were (since of course you can't recognise or isolate a fork). Not easy at all.

As to the significance of the find, certainly... a strong candidate for an intermediate between Australopithecus afarensis and Homo habilis. Yet another missing link creating two more gaps that the creationists will now say can't be filled :) If there is one certainty in the scientific world, it is that creationists cannot be convinced by mere evidence...

Well, I'm glad I said something useful, it doesn't always happen :) The best we can do is explain our views as best we can and hope that a flavor of our thoughts will actually cross the gap in understanding. As to the bible having deep mysteries, perhaps, probably, even... no book that has kicked around for 2-3,000 years can be easily dismissed, as it obviously has a very strong draw on its readers and obviously speaks to the needs many of them

Those magic eye prints, btw, are a severe pain in the kishkas :) sometimes I can make head or tail of them, sometimes not. For that reason, I don't own any, and I don't care to subject my visitors to that level of frustration either! <g>

Leszek, when you have a minute, I'd appreciate trying to understand this a bit better, it's the second time you've said somthing similar.

Can you define 'worship' for me. I'm not going to try and second guess because I could be so wrong. I sometimes see huge meetings [I hesitate to name them as Christian] on our television screens from places in the States, and they reckon they are 'worshipping' God.

I'm interested in lots of things besides "ESP" (I hate that term!)so don't write me off just yet!

I disagree, Leszek, about the lack of research in that area. There have been some very interesting experiments done. The book "Vibrational Medicine" by Richard Gerber, MD, is an excellent source of information on the "mechanics of consciousness", for lack of a better term.

You send me to my dictionary... :)

That sums it up for me. It seems to me a god that needs to be worshipped, is a god with an inferiority complex. Just my own backyard opinion *shrug* if I'm wrong, god will find a way of letting me know :) As to what constitutes an act or condition of worship, I suppose that's up to the individual creed... the holy rollers in their tents are worshipping as much as the staidest Catholic or Anglican in a cathedral, it seems to me.

However, in science we are supposed not to worship. Of course, being human we still tend to worship our scientific heroes, like Einstein or Newton or Galileo or Darwin, but it doesn't stop us from identifying their errors and trying to correct them as and when they prove to be wrong - even the best of scientists have made mistakes, every last one of them. We may worship in science, but we do not do so blindly, or at least the good scientists don't. That's the difference between scientific hero worship, and religious god-worship. Our heroes have feet of clay and we know it... that is in part what makes them such heroes.

Dianne - I didn't mean to imply I thought there has been no research into ESP (or whatever, the paranormal)... while it's been a few years since I delved into the subject, at that time, all the research that had been done was essentially inconclusive, to be charitable. Or rather negative, if one is feeling uncharitable. So while I hesitate to say that the jury has come back and found ESP innocent of existence, I can't say it's guilty either - but it may simply be very elusive... I'll settle on the old Scottish verdict of "not proven", and while I'm open to new evidence, I'm not going to spend time worrying about it until such evidence is available and readily reproducible. That's for others to find, as I have little confidence ESP exists, so I'm just not going to go looking for it... I may as well go looking for El Dorado or Atlantis, both of which may exist or have existed, but... :)

Leszek: I know, it's hard enough keeping up with things we ARE interested in, let alone things that don't interest us. That's why I figured you might not have read some of the more interesting studies on the subject. I don't like the word "paranormal" either, as it implies that intuition is something magical, or for a select few. At least it's less 70's than "ESP"!

Rosemary -

Then why, if the God of the Bible exists, did he make us that way? This is not a trivial question and I've asked it before in different ways, but no one seems disposed to pick up the gauntlet. Oh, I may get non-answers such as "we cannot know what is in God's mind(or plan, you choose)" or "man displays arrogance(or hubris, you choose) when he asks such questions" or some other equally inane drivel.

If God is perfect, then presumably he knew what he was about when he created us the way we are. We did not ask to be created this way; WE are innocent. Responsability falls to him.

God creates a race of creatures whose very nature is to doubt and question, and God knows this (he's perfect)! And furthermore, he knows what he's let himself in for...doubt and questioning from creatures (his children) who must use what God has seen fit to give them: their intellect. The consequences of this were of course known to God, but he went ahead and did it anyway. Why? So he could thunder that he cannot abide lack of trust? That he cannot abide questioning?

His children are innocent, but they are doomed to eternal torment if they don't get it right. If they don't get WHAT right? Obeisance to a literary work that is internally inconsistant? Failure to know what is in God's mind?

Now I have answered this question to my satisfaction. I believe that, if God exists at all, he doesn't much care what we do. He may not even know we exist, as Leszek said. or, he does know we exist and he entertains what might be termed a "scholarly" interest in seeing how we turn out. But he neither intervenes nor interferes.

Pardon me for injecting myself, Larry, but I’d like a clarification. You say you’ve answered the question for yourself, but you appear to be answering it for others as well. I am also confused as to whether your beef is with God or with religion as a political institution. I do not understand how someone who admittedly rejects God can legitimately state that God does not intervene in human affairs.

After what I have presented here, with assurances that the data is now or will soon be public record, I’d really like to know how you can assert such a thing. Because God hasn’t done you any favors, He doesn’t do any favors for anyone else? Surely this is not what you intended to write, but that’s the way it came out.

If indeed you have judged my testimony to be false, please tell me how you made that determination. It would be useful to me, I assure you.

Did someone tell you that life is fair Larry?

We are created, that is the first and most important point. The fact that you can ask me that question, is because you were created. Have you thanked Him for that .. no, you don't believe He exists. That is separation .. I'm sure you'll agree with that. I have said over and over again, I believe I am created, and I can cry unfair until I'm blue in the face .. it will not make me a Creator. But actually I have more faith in our Creator than that. Yes He planned it, and just as I can think up some pretty creative ways of re-routing one of my sons when he appears to be going off the rails, so I believe that the God who gave me that creative ability has some plan that is not malevolent for us. Wish I could tell you what it is .. but I can't. I can only tell you that He has promised that you'll be fulfilled taking one option, and you won't like the other. I've got to trust Him on that one too. [cont.]

Yea, again not fair is it? BTW, He encourages questions mine went something like this .. Adam sinned and I got infected, it's not my fault, hey, I want a different representative? Isn't this a democracy, don't I get a vote? "Yes you do Rosemary."

These questions aren't trivial Larry, they are at the heart of the matter, and I'd like to reserve the right to re-visit this matter if I may, because you've caught me with very little time. I do know that folk are always saying to me things like .. "I don't believe there are any absolutes," .. the fact that that in itself is an absolute statement never seems to occur to them.

That is not something I agree with, the different threads in the Bible are remarkably consistent. Neither I, nor the thousands that have spent years studying this Book are complete nincompoops, and I have no desire to throw my life away on something that is 'internally inconsistent'

You know, to a certain extent I think you're right there, but that's a big subject. I'd like to tackle it sometime. It has a correlation with the question I asked Leszek, .. what is worship.

This is out of context of the discussion in which you said this, but;

Why is the statement that no or insufficient evidence has been brought forth to justify a belief in a personal God almost exclusively expressed as rejecting God by those that do believe that there is a personal God?

This is a strawman that casts the unbeliever in the role, not of one who simply does not believe, but as an enemy to the God of the believer.

Subtleties like this are major contributors to the impression of the non (or non-traditional) thiests that thiests are reactionary, control freaks.

Many of us do not reject God, we only reject descriptions of God that are inconsistant with what we have learned to be true of the universe. To catagorise us, even unintentionaly, as "enemies of God" is to demean the very real faith, spirituality and connection to God that we posses.

Is it so terribly astounding that we tend to get very offended by this supposition?

Dang, I'm testy this morning. Believe it or not; being a father of two wonderfull babies, Columbine has me all twisted up inside. sorry (for any unintentional offense, not the thought) :-)

"Many of us do not reject God, we only reject descriptions of God that are inconsistant with what we have learned to be true of the universe."

That is it in a nutshell. Very well said, Keith.

You know, I think I’ve missed an important point about Cliff’s question of why God doesn’t reveal himself to everyone. I caught it when I re-read Larry’s post, so I’ll see if I can express it...

I’m not so sure God cares much about us one way or the other either. It’s comforting to believe so, but there’s not much evidence to support it. I can’t answer to "why" God would choose to intervene for me, and I can’t say I’m pleased with the result. Had I known my son would be granted life only so that evil men could steal it, I’d have left well enough alone.

I know what is real in this case, but even when the whole record goes public, many people will still reject it. People reject the evidences of their own experience every day. So what purpose would it serve for God to reveal himself? Half wouldn’t believe it, and another quarter would get angry about it. The debate would remain the same.

The devil didn’t make those boys in Colorado kill their classmates, the evil in themselves which they cultivated over a long period of time expressed itself. God didn’t save the lives of their classmates. It’s pretty clear that evil holds sway on this planet. This in no way means the opposing concept is dead, it just means evil people kill good people with impunity, whether or not God intervenes. This is the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil, eaten but never digested.

I’m an interventionalist, Keith, and Columbine’s got me twisted as well. My poor husband trying to finish up the building campaign at the Children’s Home breaks down in tears every time the news comes on. And every time I hear any small inkling of "well, these poor young men were being picked on..." I’m glad I’m not armed. I and everyone I’ve ever known was "picked on" in school. That’s been a standard feature of public school since forever for all who are not rich and beautiful. So??????

I was trying hard not to be testy about Larry’s question, but he seemed pretty angry when it came to God. "We’re innocent... Responsibility falls to (God)..." Now, why is it every time human beings once again demonstrate how completely and thoroughly evil they are capable of being, it’s God’s fault? Those kids were 17 and 18. I’ve met kids as young as 11 and 12 who are evil - not just misguided, though often they are misguided too - but downright evil. And they know exactly what they’re doing and why. Who’s fault is that?

(thanks for letting me spout off!...)

Sometimes "fault" is a meaningless supposition. Beyond the (I hope) obvious truth that each individual is responsible for their own actions, I don't think there are any simple, convieniant answers in a case such as this.

Personaly; I think it is a statistical aberation. So many diverse conditions had to be met, uniquely for each individual and for the pair, as to defy any reasonable, quantifiable or qualifiable analysis.

When I was in the Navy I had one outstanding D.O. (amoung a parade of nincompoops) His favorite saying was, "I don't care who [effed] this up, just figure out how to un-[eff] it!"

I agree with your D.O., Keith. That’s why intervention needs to start at least at the 6th grade...

You’ll note that a good many Christians feel the same way, and that explains why there are so many separate denominations and sects. Because the individual relationship with God is so very personal, it’s safe to say that no one interpretation can possibly be correct for all. Those who maintain that they hold the "only" truth are... misguided.

I’d hazard a guess that because humans hold both good and evil inside themselves, they respond to the God-concept on that level. For humans, the relationship is and must be personal. It does not necessarily have to be that way for God.

It might be a good idea to avoid the animosities so prevalent over on the Religion board by recognizing the difference between God and Religion. It’s apparent that humans are drawn by a spiritual influence rooted firmly in their own being. Because some people "worship" themselves, or money, or even the Devil, the spiritual impulse is not automatically tied to the God-concept or "good" versus "evil." God is subjectively defined.

Interpretation of the God-concept of course extends to religion in general outside of Christianity. Sects and denominations exist among those religions as well, for the same reasons. On this level I think Hinduism is the best example of how to avoid the pitfalls of personal preference. They’ve got so many gods and demi-gods that everybody’s covered! Step right up to the buffet and help yourself...

I don’t believe in a God who would send babies to hell because they weren’t sprinkled with water, nor does the God I know in my heart condemn anybody to eternal torment for ignorance of one religion over another. Some Christians do believe that. I do not. Life on this planet is torment enough, so my definition of eternal torment is a lot like reincarnation. Sentenced to revolving existence in an evil world forever, with some god-being or other never bothering to explain why or even tell you what you did wrong last time around to make you start all over again. <shudder> THAT’s Hell!

Jesus promised me he’d leave the back door off this planet open for me and mine. I choose to believe that, though I could have chosen something else. God created humans with Free Choice and has left us alone to exercise it. When someone who obviously understands this complains about it bitterly I get the feeling the evil in this world is getting them down. Yes, people do choose evil. Always have. But each of us has the right to choose good as well... we just need to exercise that choice with purpose rather than because someone else tells us to. THINK about our choices.

Joy, I disagree that evil holds sway on the planet. I agree that it looks that way at times, but I think that reflects more about our culture and media than it says about most of us. For every kid with a gun, there are thousands of people quietly living good lives. Unfortunately, kindness rarely makes the news.

I read Larry's post differently than you and Rosemary did. I don't think he sounded angry. The whole idea of God creating us as flawed and then demanding that we fix that or be doomed never made sense to me, either.

That isn't the God I know, and I can't accept that interpretation -- it just isn't true to me.

Joy: I can't completely disagree with your assessment of reincarnation as "torment", but I see it differently.

The idea there is that souls require many different experiences in order to gain mastery. What if sending us back through until we "get it" is not punishment at all but an opportunity, reflecting infinite patience and love? And the reason God doesn't intervene in our affairs is because we have free will to make our own choices, good or bad?

Even seemingly bad choices afford learning opportunities. One of mine was marrying the wrong person, bringing a lot of sorrow into my life. But I grew tremendously through those experiences, and had God taken that lesson away by preventing that occurrence, I would be in a very different place today.

I understand that millions of people believe in reincarnation, and I detect truth in the concept, Dianne. The fact that everyone but Shirley McClaine remains ignorant of what it was they got the "opportunity" to correct would make me ask the very same question Cliff asked. Why would God deliberately sentence us to ignorance? That seems cruel to me.

My brother died at the age of 27. He was a great guy, but rebellious from his teen years and had some problems. At the same time, he was the kind of guy who’d give his coat and last dime to a bum on the street because he was so empathic. My father, a brilliant but oddly fundamentalist right-wing angry-God sort of guy, was brokenhearted for the rest of his life believing that my brother wasn’t "good enough" to get to heaven, and he was no longer sure he wanted to go to a heaven where his only son was denied entrance.

That is tragically misguided, and my heart broke for my father. My brother believed very strongly in God, and often called Jesus his friend. When my father died I asked my husband’s brother (a Baptist minister) about this. I asked him why my father’s church would encourage him to reject his own son’s ability to get into heaven by such un-Biblical interpretation of "works" versus "faith." I told him I thought that was evil, to sow seeds like that among families when Jesus told us so clearly that Love is the answer.

My brother-in-law did admit that this sown dissention was evil, and that my brother had indeed fulfilled the stated requirements even if he was imperfect on earth. It made him THINK about what he was doing by loudly condemning gays and liberal "do-gooders" all the time, and he’s a lot gentler now. If you’re a hater, you can’t be a lover. Simple.

Joy: I don't see a whole lot of difference in the idea that we are created imperfect, and the Christian idea that we are born "sinners", though I think the first one is kinder. :-) So if you are willing to accept the latter, is the first one such a stretch?

As to why that is, I don't know...but what would life be like, if we were perfect? Not much of a life, after the first 5 minutes.

I like that viewpoint, myself. To me it says that we are working our way back TO God, by gradually (sometimes VERY gradually!) smoothing out our rough edges. So the argument currently raging on the religion board that the path we choose back to God matters holds no meaning for me. It's just a form of self-expression, not much different than the clothes we choose to wear.

Joy -

I'm sorry I don't have the time to respond to your post to me in a more in-depth manner (I wouldn't even be posting this message but I had to say something).

I assure you that when I wrote that I had answered the question I posed to my satisfaction, I meant to MY satisfaction, and my assertion that God neither intervenes nor interferes works for me. Others are free to disagree.

I further assure you that I in no way judge your testimony to be false (how could I, YOU experienced it, not I).

But I've more to say to you, I just don't have time right now.

(Cheer up, we all still love each other, right? I'll be back later)

You know, Dianne, if I didn’t honestly believe in Jesus as my answer, you and I would have to admit we share the same philosophy. I know Christianity is errant in many ways, but those are just interpretations. Maybe if I’d ever actually signed my soul away on the dotted line of interpretation I’d be jelously defensive as well. Instead, I just chose Jesus...

Please fret not, my friend! I thought right off that’s probably what you meant, but then considered maybe I hadn’t expressed myself properly and lost you along the line. THAT was distressing to me.

I’m basically wasting time before Fredzo arrives with our brand new "Amazing D.R." super-machine. Takes 1" saplings and turns them into mulch... 12’ weeds disappear... I can’t wait! We have an Amazing D.R. Brush Mower Field Day planned for Saturday, so bonfire wood is being gathered as we speak... I’m cheery.

Joy: I don't understand what you mean by this: "Maybe if I’d ever actually signed my soul away on the dotted line of interpretation I’d be jealously defensive as well. Instead, I just chose Jesus..." Que?

Despite my Buddhist/new age leanings, I have a strong affinity for Jesus and his teachings. I think if modern Christianity reflected very much of Jesus, I would call myself a Christian, too.

I think hate expressed in the name of God is a bigger sin than any of the deadly 7.

Too true. (Major Confession)... I grew up in the U.S. Navy, Dianne. Wasn’t even born in this country. There was 1 chapel and 3 chaplains, Catholic, Jewish and Protestant. No denominations. I married a submariner. I never actually joined the church, and in fact have never been baptised. This has never effected my personal relationship with either God or Jesus, and I only get defensive when some idiot starts telling me I’m going to hell for the omission. I don’t believe it.

I had a falling-out with the Presbyterian church back when my Mother-in-law insisted we get our kids baptised. We did the meetings with the pastor, a great guy named George, and explained that we viewed infant baptism as OUR promise to raise our kids to be good Christians. When he started spouting dogma I exploded. My God would not send my babies to hell because George didn’t sprinkle them with water!

I’ve never been back except for weddings and funerals and occasions when my husband has to do the preaching. He has never told me I must sign on the dotted line, and he’s been on more than one serious mission for the World Council. My Mother-in-law is a Presbyterian Deacon. My brother-in-law is a Baptist minister. Takes all kinds of Christians to make a Church, so I’m not signing anybody’s dotted line. Jesus is my friend. God is my God. Everything else is politics...

Greetings! I just joined this message board and have not read all of the postings so excuse my ignorance but Joy when you stated "Jesus is my friend. God is my God. Everything else is politics..." I do not follow your meaning. What are you saying? Jesus is your friend in what way? What does God is my God really mean?

Joy -

Finally made it back to this board. Joy, I was gonna call you on your:

except that Keith beat me to it, and I have to say, he did so in an elegantly argued manner. But I will reiterate, in my own words, that not believing in God is not the same as rejecting God. I do not know for sure if there is a God or not. I could be convinced of God's existence if provided with sufficient evidence.

In the meantime, my take is that, even if there IS a God, he (very apparently to me at least) does not intervene in human affairs. Those who cite instances to the contrary (leaving aside, for the moment, your experience) are not able to dissuade me from invoking alternative (and natural) explanations.

I must also respond to a passage from a post of yours to Keith:

(I better post this and resume)

Joy (cont'd) -

First, thanks for correcting my spelling of "responsibility":)

Second, I in no way blame God for any actions taken by humans. We are on our own and are accountable to and for ourselves. What I said was, IF the God of the Bible exists, it is HIS responsibility that we are "born with sin", that we are "fallen". We did not ask to be created thus.

I take the existentialist view that there is no cosmic Evil (capital E) and no cosmic Good (capital G). We humans have to determine those things for ourselves. Still, I'll wager your concept of good and evil closely resembles mine.

Also:

How do you know for sure?

Exactly! I don't believe IT, or any number of other dogmatic assertions made by interpreters of the Bible either! So can you see that, if you can pick and choose what you want to believe in, I can do the same?

Finally:

With regard to your experience: I truly do not know what to make of it. I've been thinking about it, it isn't enough to change MY mind, but, still...I dunno. I'll think on it some more.

Rosemary -

To me, Rosemary, it only seems to corroborate Descarte: "I think therefore I am". I was born, yes, but I do not believe I was Created (with a capital C).

Well, if there is a God, then yes I suppose I agree that it is separation...but surely NOT sin.

But Rosemary...this is the best you can come up with? Yea, it's not fair? That's it? Do you seriously wonder why I can't swallow any of this?

Show me where it says THAT in the Bible.

Rosemary, I respect (even admire) your faith. I don't think either one of us will ever convince the other of our respective POV though.

Greetings to you as well, j wheeler! Is there a name we can attach for conversational purposes?

You have asked what I mean with my statement to Dianne about religious preference. The context is simply that I am a Christian, and I was clarifying what that means to me. In other words, I believe Jesus to be my savior, and God to be God. God being a sort of generic term, I mean in particular the God of Abraham.

There has been a bit of confusion about what Christianity "is," as there are so very many denominations and sects and even individual churches who define it differently. What I was attempting to explain to Dianne is that it really isn’t necessary to sign on the dotted line with any one of the various versions. All that’s required for someone to be a Christian is to accept Jesus as savior. Which congregation gets the tithe is what I refer to as politics.

No congregation gets my tithe. I directly support various missions, and I think that’s fine... at least I haven’t been struck by lightning lately! I think wealthy preachers are entirely unnecessary. By missions, I mean things like children’s homes, feeding and clothing the needy, disaster relief, things like that. Works.

I’m sure many Christians would disagree with me about everything, and some would be appalled that I call myself Christian even though I do not officially belong to any denomination and have never been officially baptised. I don’t mind! §:o)

On the baptism thing, I realize it’s a full-fledged tenet of the Church and that I am not allowed to receive communion. Since I rarely attend church, that doesn’t bother me either. Communion is an automatic part of my everyday life in the world, the breaking of bread around my table every day with those I love and in praise.

Baptism is a symbolic rite, and I am not very much into ritualistic things. I personally believe religion to be a political institution in the world, meaning it exists to facilitate fellowship among believers, strengthen their faith and understanding, and lead them through life in whatever ways the denomination decides are important. While this is an important and necessary thing, I enjoy working directly in the world more than I’ve ever enjoyed trying to stay awake in church for an hour a week.

My understanding comes from reading the Bible, various theological works, and experiencing life. My husband is very knowledgable, so if I have questions I ask. If he doesn’t know the answer, he discusses it with his religious associates. He works directly with ordained ministers, deacons and lay leaders in Presbyterian missions (and occasionally with the World Council and non-denominational missions), while his brother is an ordained Baptist minister. I get a pretty good perspective on how the churches officially answer whatever questions I have. And this forum is useful to me as well in terms of fellowship and meager attempts to express myself.

I’ll leave it to God to judge whether or not I’m a good enough Christian to qualify.

(1 of 4... Whew! Y’all can fast-forward if you want...)

Larry - looks like the links aren’t converting today, so I’ll avoid them. I can’t really answer to the underlying reasons God decided to create us with Free Will. Genesis tells me this was a separate order of creation from angels, though it also tells me that angels must have Free Will too or they couldn’t have rebelled. Free Will, based on the evidence that angels have the same choice, must not qualify as the "Image of God" that makes us different from angels.

Science has long demonstrated that manifest creation is duality-based. For every particle there’s an anti-particle, every action has an equal and opposite reaction, etc. Yin and yang on everything that "is." Science has also done a good job of defining the several dimensionalities of manifestation, though I don’t believe it’s defined them all. As our tools become more precise and sensitive I think we’ll find a few more dimensions exist, and that those relate to levels of subtlety in matter/energy. Those further dimensions, when they are discovered and defined, might help us to understand more about things which nowdays are deemed "supernatural." I expect we’ll find that many supposedly "supernatural" things are in fact perfectly natural.

Free Will, or Choice, is obviously a duality-based quality. This means it must operate entirely within the dimensionalities of creation. Both humans and angels (a more subtle form) must have been designed to operate within creation. God can also operate within creation, but as the creator of creation He must also operate outside of creation.

(2 of 4)

So the God-nature, or "Image" contains something more than the limitations of duality-based creation... I suspect the something more to be the opposite of creation. The question then arises as to what pre-existed existence, or what is on the other side of the Singularity at the beginning of Time. I call it Not-Time.

I have previously described an experience I had with Not-Time. I am perfectly willing to accept that the parameters of my perceptions (senses) as a human being caused me to perceive it on human terms, and I wouldn’t venture a guess as to whether that’s the same way Not-Time is perceived by its actual inhabitants. We do have an intrinsic link to whatever it is, though.

Boy. I’m not doing very well trying to explain this either. It makes sense to me, but putting it into words that would make sense to you isn’t very easy, I’m afraid.

Anyway, because manifestation is duality-based and humans have the freedom to choose between the opposing concepts of "good" and "evil," you can legitimately say that God created the POSSIBILITY of evil when he created humans. But I don’t think it’s legitimate to blame God for the totally human choice to do evil when the equally (or more) valid choice to do good exists.

(3 of 4)

When the young men in Colorado chose to do evil, it was their own choice. God did not make them do it any more that the "devil" made them do it. They alone are responsible for the choice, as we are all personally responsible for our choices. That’s not a very popular concept these days, but I firmly believe it to be true. Rosemary would call this "Sin," and I’d have to agree. It’s apparent that humans have a propensity toward sin, and it’s reasonable to conclude from the Genesis allegory that it came about when the original specially-designed humans made the wrong choice.

Which brings me back to my original question on this forum, "What is the nature of evil?" Most Christians believe in the existence of the devil, or Satan, as the archtype of evil. Many believe that Satan is the one who actually causes evil, but I think that’s just another cop-out to avoid responsibility for the choice to do evil. Hebraic tradition views Satan as the "Prince of this world," who’s job is to tempt humans by whispering the alternatives whenever there is a choice to be made. It’s a dirty job, but somebody had to do it! I think Satan gets a bum rap for doing his job.

(4 of 4)

So I don’t believe that Satan is the archtype of evil, I believe he’s the angelic agent of choice. I don’t think it’s hard to imagine that he’s not very fond of humans, who are so prone to doing evil deeds with only the slightest encouragement. I still believe evil is an entirely human quality. A lion is not evil to kill a gazelle because killing gazelles is what lions do. It is their nature, and their function within the natural order.

Wind and rain and earthquakes aren’t evil either, they are natural functions of nature as well. Humans can be killed by lions, wind, rain and earthquakes, and such deaths are tragic but also natural in the natural world. Death, the opposite of life, is part of the dual nature of manifestation and it’s universal in every generation. So I don’t believe death is evil.

I do believe murder is evil. The deliberate theft of life, which IS a choice made by humans. Humans brought evil into the world, and humans are responsible for evil in the world. You can blame God because He created humans, but I think that’s a cop-out too.

Have I made any sense? I hereby apologize profusely for making this the "Joy Forum" and will refrain from further contributions today if I can!!!!

Geez, Joy, all I said was we (humans) create our own Good and Evil (notice I capitalized). I assert that there is no cosmic Good or Cosmic Evil (I could be wrong) and then you write the great American epic trying to convince me that, yes there is!

We're doing that Monte Python thing here (yes it is!-No it isn't!) and talking past each other in the process.

But I do notice that you're somewhat of a "cafeteria Christian" yourself. I mean no disrespect, in fact, I have no problem with that. I myself have chosen rather more sparingly from the cafeteria's offerings. While you were away from the boards, I posted that, while I do not believe in God, I consider myself a Christian, because I follow (as best I can) the teachings of Christ the man.(Well, THAT brought rain!)

Anyway, if your keyboard has cooled off, any and all replies will be entertained. (I do a soft-shoe:))

<giggle> Thanks, Larry. I've got arthritis and can't write very well, but I can type as fast as I can think! It's a curse...

I'm not convincing anyone of anything here. I know that and I think that's why I love y'all so much. It's really a strange sort of dialogue, and mostly I'm just committing to what it is I already believe. No one else is required to give an inch, honest!

I like the term Cafeteria Christian. I think that because there's so much to choose from, EVERY Christian is in the cafeteria. Some order from the entree menu, some of us go a la carte. I wonder why more of them don't see it???

Joy, you are right that no one likes abortion. The situation before Congress is that human embryonic stem cells have already been created (supported by a commercial firm), both from aborted fetuses and also from discarded embryos from in vitro fertilization clinics. It isn't necessary to go back for additional fetuses or embryos, because the cells can now be grown in lab dishes. Congress wants to outlaw federally supported research using these cells because of their origin. The cells themselves have great potential for understanding and curing many diseases. An alternative would be to make the embryonic cells from adult cells and eggs, but that is what one would do to clone a human, so that is also off the table.

Rosemary, the Bible has been around a long time, but not for as long as some might think. The present New Testament is older than the present Old Testament, for example ( I found this out from a book by a biblical scholar about the Dead Sea Scrolls). The fact that a committee got together to decide what books to put in and which to leave out makes me suspicious of the whole process. What do you mean by accepting Jesus as your saviour? Does this mean believing that he was born of a virgin and bodily resurrected from the dead? Or that he served as a scapegoat for the sins of the world by being put to death? The whole Christian scenario doesn't make a bit of sense to me. I like the religion OF Jesus much better than the religion ABOUT Jesus.

Larry, I agree completely. If you are a good God, why even create the possibility of evil? Why create humans as curious, then tell them that if they partake of the knowledge of good and evil they will die, and then make it so tempting to acquire that knowledge? I'm in the same boat with all of you who believe that if God, if He exists, is benignly indifferent.

Cliff, I'm interested in evolution too. This latest find is very interesting, but won't impress the creationists one bit. My step-gra

Larry,

That is THE sin, and it's a cosmic sin if you like. Of the Ten Commandments, the first four are for believers, the other six are for humanity. All the talk on these boards about lying or stealing or whatever [all covered by the Golden Rule], are just the rules that the Creator gave us to enable us to live with each other safely.

Yes I do, I am frequently asked to try and put myself into the 'box' of another on this board. And I sincerely try to do just that. Well, now I'm asking you to try and put yourself in my 'box.' I believe there is a Creator. He Created beings in His image .. gave them life. They decided and decide everyday, to reject Him, despite the fact that they wouldn't even exist if He hadn't made them. [This is where you have to try hard to stay in my box, because your mind is rejecting what I'm saying already isn't it?] So after that incident, He gave them another chance. Then He chose a whole people to live for Him and in obedience to His rules .. to show others. They too rejected Him. So He sent a part of Himself, [His Son] to those people .. but even this was not enough. He too was rejected, spat at and hung on a Cross. You cry .. "No fair, why should God leave people ignorant et.al." I ask a deeper question, "Why, after such cosmic treason, does God give ANY possibilities for man to turn to Him and try to get to know Him?" Can you put yourself in my 'box' long enough to answer that question?

Joy, I disagree, you are not a cafeteria Christian .. oh yes we all are to a certain extent in our pride, but you come from Scripture, whether your interpretation of it differs from mine is irrelevant, is it where we go for instruction?

[Chuckle] Gosh Dawn, you'd better have a word with a few of the Jewish faith if you think the NT is older than the OT. Mind you [just to throw in a curly one], Joy is right, what is time? God is outside time in the ever present now, perhaps then and now are all now really!!

Seriously, the more I study this book, the more I become convinced in the intellectual integrity of the Bible. In fact, I am completely overawed by it's profound depth, it's coherence and it's intricate internal consistency. If you took away the Bible, you would take away Christ [who is in both Old and New] and I would have no faith. Actually, because of my faith I admit, I think if you took away the Bible and Christ, you would take away life and I would not be here having this conversation. I'm not a bit worried about which bits human beings decided to put in or leave out. I could manage on far fewer .. give me Genesis, Exodus, Matthew and John if you like .. it would be nice to have Job and the Psalms as a treat though.

Did I use that expression, you surprise me. I mean that I believe that Jesus is God, He is Divine and what is more I think He consistently claims that in almost every word He says.

I agree, which is why I don't think man made it up .. I can think of much better ways of doing things, but then I've got a finite mind.

You are way ahead of me on this, Dawn! I’m glad to hear they can culture stem cells already, which means I totally agree it’s stupid to outlaw the research. Why on earth should we limit our investigations of our physical selves? Human cells both embryonic and mature are as cheap as matter - atoms and molecules. When we die at any stage of life, those atoms and molecules are recycled because they belong to the earth, not to us personally forever.

I think the research is ultimately exciting. When the chemical triggers are isolated, it will be possible to introduce genetic material from a "host," trigger a heart, then emplant the cell somewhere near the aorta to grow a perfectly good new heart that will not be rejected. The good that can come from this far outweighs the evil so long as we keep an eye on it.

What do you see as the possible pitfalls of this research, if any?

Scripture is THE source, Rosemary. I can ask questions, read what "experts" have to say about things, and contemplate for myself whether or not it makes sense. You are absolutely right about our individual pride. Someone as contrary as me, who refuses to sign that dotted line because I don’t buy this or that article of faith, is guiltier than most.

Pride is one of those odd components of human nature that helps to make us such misfits. It’s the source of most sin, but it’s also a necessary component of our intelligence (thus our discernment). It’s our discernment which allows us to interpret scripture, so pride is going to inevitably make us wrong even if we’re right! Oh, well. At least we can recognize our tragic contradiction.

My only defense is that God (or Jesus, or the Spirit) has always been as close to me as my own heart, so I’ve never really been "lost" even when I looked at other answers. Just my curious nature, I guess. I’ve never had a life-changing "religious experience." The angel came in response to my demand, not any plea for saving grace. The answer to my demand came immediately, but the angel got waylayed for 10 days. I don’t know why...

I think Dawn meant that the current OT, as it exists in the current bible(s) is a more recent edit than the NT. The source material is, obviously, much older.

Cliff made a rather tight case revolving around implantation. If the cells aren't going anyplace, e.g. growing into a person, they are just cells and should recieve no special moral or ethical consideration.

If the cells, lacking disturbance, can reasonably be expected to grow into a person, e.g. post implantation, then this development should not be tampered with (at least not lightly -- I don't wish to open an abortion debate on this board!)

Sorry Dawn, I see that Keith is probably correct, but I hope my answer covers it anyway.

Rosemary -

You said (and the Bible says):"He created beings in His image".

This has always been somewhat confusing to me. What is YOUR interpretation of this passage? Do you believe we physically resemble God? Do we think like Him? What, precisely, does this passage mean?(Well, as precisely as you can manage, that is:))

Although you are addressing Larry, let me step in here, if I may. Of course, if you ask me to accept all the premises of your belief system, I have a pretty good chance of coming to a similar understanding as you. Indeed, I can try to do so. I can read the message you posted to Larry, conceive the (what is to me) fiction you present, and see that it is all possibly coherent (although this may well be arguable by someone with a better knowledge of Christianity than me). But those premises... wow! :-)

So, is this all you are asking us to accept, or is there more?

Also, Rosemary, I know that you can put yourself in my box, and see that the conclusions I draw make sense to me. Unfortunately, not all believers seem able to do that.

Guess I’ll interject if you’re going to interject, Andrew. I don’t think it’s so very difficult in civil debate to try and understand the foundation upon which the other party bases his or her position. Leads to well-rounded discourse. Rosemary has stated her position very well, so I don’t think it’s fair to be flippant without at least acknowledging the point. Larry expressed his confusion as to how sin causes separation from God.

One need not accept the tenets of faith in order to understand how cause might lead to effect, as seen from the vantage point of faith. Presuming, of course, that one understands the difference between good and evil. If these concepts are entirely relative in your point of view, I’d like to see a well-reasoned basis for that position rather than a slam of faith in general. Thank you.

Not so hard, Larry. God is not a DNA-based life form (or any life form we can define) evolved or created, thus the "Image of God" cannot be a physical likeness. Atoms and molecules belong to manifest creation and are recycled within creation.

Does "Image of God" mean anything in particular to you? I ask because I don’t know what it means either. Maybe you’re onto something about thought process, but the only thought process we possess that is significantly different from animals is our abstract reasoning, which is based in our ability to rationalize both sides of any coin... or in easier terms, choose between opposing concepts or attempt to transcend opposition to actualize a new concept.

Joy, why must everything I post be an attack on your belief system? I think if you read what I wrote to Rosemary, you might find it was not in any way ridiculing the premises of her belief system, but saying, in what I hoped would be construed as a light-hearted way, that they were quite a lot different from mine.

Now we've been down this road before, Joy, and you thoroughly exasperated me before (does the sentence `You hang out with bullies engaged in turf wars,' sound familiar to you). Know that I will cease well short of where I allowed myself to be drawn the last time. I have been having, I think, civil dialogue with Rosemary in your absence. Please do not disturb this.

Rosemary, Keith is correct, I did mean that the OT was a newer edition than the NT. The current OT was assembled around 1000 AD. The oldest books of the NT date back to around 70-80 AD.

Joy, I'm glad to see that you, as a pro-life proponent, can reason that once stem cells have been created and no more fetuses or embryos will be needed, we should use the cells for research. There's a lot of potential for organ transplants, and for curing diabetes and spinal cord injuries. The stem cells won't turn back into embryos, although theoretically this could happen if their nuclei were injected into a human egg. This will of course be illegal.

I see that one of the Columbine killers was a diagnosed obsessive-compulsive. Mental illness is something I find difficult to reconcile with religion. I don't believe most Christians think that the mentally ill are possessed by Satan anymore--or do they? Where is the line between insanity and evil? Are you responsible for a crime committed when someone else slips LSD into your drinking water? Which personality of the MPD has the soul?

Dawn: Can you flesh this out a little? You said, "Mental illness is something I find difficult to reconcile with religion." I can think of a couple of ways that you might be going with this, so I'm not sure how to respond. Is mental illness that different from physical illness, in terms of religion?

Oh, yeah. Now I remember! Thanks for clarifying what I perceived to be a flippant attitude for what it actually is.

I am pro-life, Dawn, but not particularly an advocate. I also recognize that government should stay out of the business of regulating who comes to or from women’s bodies. To me, cells are just cells if they can be grown in a petri dish.

Seen a good deal of mental illness. We work closely with our local mental health programs in dealing with at-risk and adjudicated youth, and I believe that 1 on 1 counseling can lead to far better treatments than schools who have a list of doctors who dish out Ritalin or Prozac on demand.

I don’t believe in possession, I believe in schitzophrenia. I do not believe that angels (including fallen ones, like "Satan and his minions") possess human bodies. Such possession negates Free Will. I have seen people deliberately open themselves to evil thought-forms, however. That might be considered "possession," but in all situations I have seen, the subject gave permission... at least the first time. That probably qualifies as mental illness too.

Has anyone read E. O. Wilson's book, Consilience? It's an argument that eventually, all of the social sciences, religion and the humanities will be explicable in terms of physical laws governing our universe... I believe he's right, but I was interested in knowing what others thought... assuming they'd read the book...

On the subject of mental illness vs. possession, I have noted that a large percentage of the seriously disturbed youth we deal with are involved in what I would describe as a form of "devil worship" on the lines of what I described as deliberately opening themselves to evil thought-forms. I have long suspected a drug component in this subculture, but I’m not able to identify it (kids are closed-mouthed about that).

I live in a long-isolated, very rural Appalachian environment, yet have seen eerie similarities with the recent (last 2 years) violent incidents like Littleton last week. It appears to me that whatever the influence is, it’s coming through the media, and whether he means it or not, Marilyn Manson is the common denominator. That could be a cue, not something deliberate on this artist’s part, but something is going on.

We’re trying to figure out how to deal directly. 6 bomb/terrorist threats in schools this week locally. ARGH!!!! I’ll take that to the Littleton board...

Sorry no, Leszek. Read any of Jung's work on synchronicity?

Larry, I do wish you would answer my question before proceeding to ask me another. -) Perhaps you thought it was rhetorical, if so my mistake.

The Bible discriminates between mankind and other animals in terms of the "imago Dei." Indicating that man is made for personal and endless fellowship with God, involving rational understanding. [Gen 1:28 and following.] Moral obedience [2:16-17] and spiritual fellowship with his Maker. Mankind is given dominion over the animals and charged to subdue the earth .. meaning to consecrate it to the spiritual service of God and man. You can see that I have garnered that information from Scripture, because I see myself as "fallen," I have to distrust most things my mind comes up with, so I have to stop there. I have on occasion tried to wade through a treatise written by this side and that, but I find it very confusing to examine this in more detail, when I have the beautiful simplicity of the above that tells me so much. [cont]

Larry continued ..

To return to my question in the previous post. I think the problem of evil is the most severe problem for Christians, and although I've read quite a few different explanations recently, from people who have tried to deal with the problem, I don't think any are totally satisfactory. However, the answer to the question I posed to you, enables me, [perhaps I should use a stronger word there] to continue as a Christian. Greater minds than mine, whether Christian or Atheist, have struggled with this problem, but if you have anything you'd like to contribute to my thoughts on this matter, please do, I'd appreciate the help. I had given passing thought to this matter previously, but not looked at it in any depth until Joy joined the board and raised it, and in her inimitable fashion, kept raising it. At one point I considered that my inability to answer this problem must negate my faith [although I don't think Cliff realised how serious I was.] At present, all I can say is I'm still thinking and listening. BTW, in theological terms, this problem is termed "theodicy."

Andrew, oh darn, you're just like Larry .. didn't answer the question.

I wish you could see the big grin on my face when I read that, those premises still make me wonder how I could possibly believe them .. oh but if they're true Andrew, .. then I feel about them as you do about that mathematical equation you were chatting about the other day .. truly sublime.

Actually I'm not asking you to accept anything. I think where I have the biggest problem is that I find in talking to most folk, that they have never actually examined the arguments for a Creator. Rather they examine the faith and criticise that. What is more, this is not confined to atheists and agnostics. There are many many folk who call themselves Christian who have no idea WHY they believe there is a Creator, so there are many issues where, because we start in a different place, we are at cross purposes. For example, I can often find that I have a clearer understanding of Keith's position as a Deist, than I do with some believers. I'm quite happy to discuss any aspect of my faith, in fact I enjoy it, because each time I do, I learn something.

One further thing, to add to the above .. "Oh, but if they're true Andrew, .. then all this talk [not here] about "MY RIGHTS" of one sort or another, is just .. a mere bagatelle, irrelevant.

Joy, thankyou so much for your support, it means so much to me. You and Andrew couldn't be more different in my humble opinion. I think we can be waaaaaay out in forming opinions of what folk are like from these rather sterile posts, but you strike me as being something of a flaming torch. You flicker very brightly sometimes, so brightly that I'm unable to follow what I suspect is the sheer brilliance of thought. You add much to my life and I'm delighted you are back in our midst. Andrew is much more difficult for me to understand, but I hope I'm beginning to. The trouble is that his mind is far superior to mine, it's extremely logical .. such that when a poster makes an error in a rational line of thought, his mind cannot "glide" over it as yours and mine might do, but he must isolate it and deal with it. I'm afraid I'm much more inclined to be intellectually "flighty." I like to be able to grasp the essence of the thought without doing too much in the way of "justifying" that thought. My big fear is that I am not the best representative of My Creator when it comes to Andrew and Larry, and I wish there were more male representatives of our faith on these boards.

Yes, I know, that was bad wording on my part. What I was meaning was whether all you were saying was: if you accept my beliefs, then can you accept the conclusions I draw about the nature of God? If this is your question, then my answer is, `perhaps so.'

I think perhaps I know `this talk' of which you speak :-) And, again, if I am asked to accept your premises, then I can see that this conclusion must make sense. I am interested, though, about your feelings about this being `sublime.'

And thank you, Rosemary, for understanding that I meant no disrespect of your beliefs in my interjection to your conversation with Larry. You correctly surmise my strong desire for rational coherence as far as that is possible. But you unnecessarily flatter me by asserting that my mind is superior to yours - it is merely different.

And for future reference, if you wish to state to a mathematician that you feel as strongly about something as they do, you will have more success using `theorem' as your analogue than `equation.' Just as most mathematicians dislike numbers, many also dislike equations. We are idea people :-)

Andrew, late night Friday [typing sermon] so I caught your post before sleep. Had to have a quick look at 'sublime' in my dictionary to check if it correctly describes the feeling. Mine [Oxford] says .. "of the most exalted, grand or noble kind," amongst other things, that's a pretty correct description. How does it fit your feeling with the maths theorem? I looked that up too, it says .. "a general proposition not self-evident but proved by a chain of reasoning; a truth established by means of accepted truths." Veeery interesting, that's pretty much how I've come to my conclusions too.

My thought for the night .. Jesus tells us in John 17:3 .. "Now this is Eternal Life .. that they may know you, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent." This indicates that eternal life is knowing God, having a relationship with Him. A healing of the separation I have talked about, and that it starts now. However, if as I said earlier, God made us to have rational, moral and spiritual fellowship with Him, then you would be OK, you could talk about maths all day, Leszek could discuss the in's and outs of creating dinosaurs, Joy could soar with the planets .. I'm just not sure where I would fit in, I'm a little scatty!!

<blush> Rosemary, yours are some of the very kindest words anybody’s ever said about me! (Most folks I deal with think I’m impossibly hard-headed and single-minded, which is no doubt true in whatever "mission" I happen to be promoting that day). I am undeserving in the extreme, but thank you anyway.

I’ve got so many irons in the fire I get mixed up sometimes. One day it’s an early a.m. board meeting trying to design a restitution program, the next it’s dealing with some very disturbed teenager in a group home who has been arrested for arson or threatening to bomb a school, the next it’s inspecting the grantees for certification, the next spent faxing legal briefs or writing grants... Endless Miasma! On top of it all, there’s the personal legal situation, which has in the past 72 hours catapulted itself out of control on at least 4 levels (trial was just Stage 1 of that rocket ship...).

In between all that, I check this board for "relaxation." My faith, seemingly mixed up as it is, is ultimately important to me. My personal relationship with God and with my savior Jesus. Sometimes the workload gets me down. The defeats are as hard to stomach as the victories are sublime. There’s so much work to be done in this world, and so little time for my tiny portion of it to be accomplished. You have been a Godsend to me. Please don’t ever think your contributions are not gratefully received and carefully digested!!!!

Rosemary -

I'm sorry, but I did indeed think that your question was rhetorical. Hope this is the one you meant:

Hmmmm, cosmic treason?? That's rather strong language for something that (from my POV you understand)God tricked us into doing in the first place. As to why he should give man more chances, well...he owes it to us. Now don't go saying that's human arrogance (that's what you're thinking,right?) it's what I feel from MY little box.

Can I put myself in your box to see things from your POV? Andrew seems to have a better handle on doing that than I do, I must admit. Mind you, I was raised Catholic, and I can recall believing those things, but...honestly, Rosemary, I do have difficulty seeing things from your perspective, but I do try. It's just that every time I do, I end up asking myself "how could I possibly believe in this?"

I find your answer to my question about how we might be in God's image somewhat confusing. Not to worry, there's plenty enough to be confused about there. Here's why I asked:

Do you mean to say that God is non-sensical? I don't know how else to interpret that response. Do you see why I ask why it is asserted that we are made in God's image? If we don't LOOK like him and don't THINK like him, how is it that we are in his image?

Rosemary,

Of course, your comparison of the process of arriving at your concept of God and the proof of a mathematical theorem initially raised my eyebrows :-) However, as the following tongue-in-cheek story suggests, my first reaction may have been premature.

A few years ago, I attended an interesting talk. The speaker was discussing a certain class of mathematical objects. These objects, which bear a real name I won't trouble you with, I shall dub `godifolds.' I do this for effect in this forum, and because one of the nice things about being a mathematician is that you get to name stuff. Anyway, the speaker gave the axioms which define `godifolds' and then, using these axioms, derived some interesting and non-obvious theorems concerning how to construct a bunch of `godifolds' given a single `godifold,' the stability of `godifolds' (i.e., if you tweak a `godifold' a little, do you still get a `godifold'), and things of this nature. It was all very interesting, and I was thinking that these `godifolds' were pretty neat.

Then the end of the talk comes, and the speaker makes a confession. No one is really sure whether `godifolds' exist! That is, no one has been able to find objects which meet the requirements of the axioms he laid out. Mathematicians, apparently, have strong feelings that `godifolds' do exist, but until one is demonstrated, we cannot be sure.

Now I say, if we are unsure about the existence of `godifolds,' surely this does not bode well for God himself! >:->

(Reminder: The name `godifold' is something I just made up. Except for that name, the above story is fact.)

Humble question please, Andrew. I miss E.C.’s equations. What’s a "godifold," and how is it folded? Are we talking warps?

...In how many dimensions? ...And is it really warp and not weft?

Greetings--at last. Last Monday, an electrical storm came through the Tulsa area. Lightning struck my telephone line and fried my modem. Never heard of such a thing before, but in the future, I'm disconnecting my telephone line from my modem during electrical storms. Nice to be back. Lots of catching up to do, I see :-)

Well, I found Volume 138, Number 1, March 1999 table of contents of ICARUS and discovered that nowhere in that table of contents does it list an E.C. as an author :-)

Well, doing nothing is convenient enough for me :-) (Feeling pretty good tonight with my new modem finally installed :-)

Well, I asked for comments. I guess I can't complain when I get them :-)

Actually, I like the name, ESP, for the phenomenon--assuming it exists. I think there is nothing wrong with the phrase "Extra-Sensory Perception." It seems to me to be a pretty good description. And I kinda liked the seventies. I was much younger then.

Somehow, Joy, I get the impression you are trying to use my own words against me here, and I must confess you are doing it quite well. You are correct. I can not have it both ways. If I insist that my first question is whether or not my brain might be fooling me, how can I say that God could make himself known to me if he desired to do so. (But, although that is what I say, actually, I think I tend to believe my own experiences and feelings, and I tend not to seriously question my understanding of them unless, and until, I discover contrary evidence.)

I see no need of that hypothesis. Why do you think an angelic agent is needed?

I am not sure that is precisely correct. I think it might be more correct to say that some members of congress wants to do this. However, if I am wrong and congress does pass it into law, I do not think Clinton will veto it.

In my opinion, it is just one more piece of the puzzle, and it is further conformation of a trend in evolutionary evidence that I do not believe will ever be overturned.

I agree with you. But I don't think that is what the Bible says. The author (J or Moses--it makes no difference here) of that passage in Genesis did not know anything about DNA, and I am of the opinion that he intended the passage to mean physical likeness. Is that not what image means? Also, did not God walk with, and talk with, Adam in the Garden of Eden, according to the author (whoever he/she was) of that passage? This also suggests two of a kind.

Yes, the problem of evil in this context does appear to be a significant one. Specifically, the question is: how is it possible that a perfect being, God, might create beings, humans, clearly having the capacity for evil. I do not have an answer, and I do not think anyone is likely to come up with one that will satisfy me. At the same time, I do not insist it is impossible since I do not know it is impossible.

With respect to the strength of your faith, regardless what I might have said in the middle of an argument, I actually do see value in faith, in some cases. For example, Rosemary, if you are comforted by your faith, I desire that you be comforted by your faith. For that reason, I suggest you answer this question: is your faith meaningful to you? I think you should cling to your faith as long as it is meaningful to you.

Very interesting story Andrew, except I was most disappointed in the omission of the actual name of the objects. Could I trouble you for the actual name of the objects in question?

Larry, it's nearly Sunday so somewhat in haste.

Sorry to be dense, but exactly what was the 'trick' again? However you definitely couldn't get the answer if you're stuck there .. our boxes are definitely not communicating at present.

You say you were raised a Catholic, even if you weren't you would have heard a partial Christian message somewhere if you live in the West, and I think it's lost it's impact hasn't it. Take the Christian symbol of the Cross, I see it everywhere, and not only adorning believers. Earrings, necklaces etc., but if I went round wearing a mini electric chair I'll bet you'd think that was strange?

Or take the bizarre reaction of the criminals, we can quite understand the one hanging next to Jesus who jeered and scorned. "You think you're so special, so great .. well get out of THIS." But the other one, how did he come to his conclusion. We see death as loss and losing, not as winning by any means .. how come he saw Jesus' death as a victory?

You see those two example's above are strange, bizarre, not what we would expect. I would expect some to say "non-sensical." But what I say is that it's too strange for man to have made up. If you think that, who made it up? And what about Christ's words, did someone make them up too [careful with that one.] Was he a meglomaniac? You have obviously explained it away in some way, shape or form .. please tell me.

Andrew, I can't say that I understand it completely, but I love it. Leszek will understand it though, it's what he's been trying to explain to me for months about evolution. It's what I've been saying too. What is totally amazing is that so many folk can come to so many different conclusions from approximately the same information .. mind blowing!!

Cliff .. darn, and I thought at the very least you were wallowing somewhere like Hawai, or my favourite Fiji.

That's very kind of you Cliff, and I mean that. But personally, I don't want it unless it's true. If it's true, then although I might complain about it .. the comfort is as you say inexpressible. It gives me hope. The second part .. is it meaningful .. doesn't really come into it. I find that I "fight" against my faith non stop. Of course if the Bible is true, then that is explained by my 'sinful' nature .. again, the big question is .. where does the heart of the story in the Bible come from .. God or man?

You see, although I don't think you meant it that way, your above remarks could be taken as a sort of pat on the head and .. "Well, if it's true for you, and does you some good, and helps you to BE good, then go for it." But that won't do for me. I can't prove it absolutely, just as no-one can disprove it absolutely, but at the very least I want something like Andrew's case for godifolds, or Leszek's case for evolution .. anything less is a waste of time.

Oh dear, now I'm going to have to work late, why can't I leave it until tomorrow .. that's rhetorical Larry!!

The real name for `godifold' is special Lagrangian submanifold. It lives inside a Kahler manifold and has half its dimension. Since it is Lagrangian, the symplectic form vanishes on it. I do not remember the exact conditions for `special,' but it has something to do with the complex structure. I also fibbed a bit. One can readily construct linear special Lagrangian submanifolds. So dull examples do exist. But no other examples are known (at least as of a few years ago). I realise this is likely of little help, but you asked :-)

I will add, however, that apparently the belief is that these submanifolds are related to so-called `mirror symmetry' in some way, and so physicists are interested for that reason. But I recall nothing of the physics behind why physicists are interested. I heard it once, but it has vanished from my mind.

Oh. This is like the carburator on the Amazing DR All-Terrain Brush Mower? (kidding! Toss in a word like "manifold" and I’m automatically thinking internal combustion...) §:o)

Afraid I’m lost on the math (not surprising), but I’m intrigued by the physics. Wish you could tell me more about that. Is it subatomic? Almost sounds like a field thing, a probability quotient useful in synthesis. I use synthesis because the forms are hard to create the first time, but once created are much easier to recreate at will, and they’re mirror images. Guess I’ll have to look this one up, but thanks for the info!

Welcome back, Cliff! Nothing’s quite as spectacular as Oklahoma in tornado season, is there? Glad to hear it was just your modem on the line rather than your ear! <low whisper> pssst... I don’t think E.C. is his real name... §:o)

I don’t know why human beings need angels OR devils, since we’re perfectly capable of designing evil all by ourselves. Or at least we believe we do it all by ourselves... So I don’t have a ready answer. I would say the whole angel/devil concept was a psychological projection - a personification of divisions in the human psyche, if you will - if I hadn’t actually met an angel. Now I’m not nearly as comfortable writing ol’ Satan off so easily. Rosemary’s probably better equipped to explain this to both of us!

Hmmm. I see the creation story as inspirational allegory, so the use of the word "image" probably DOES mean physical likeness. I don’t know what the original word is, and since I don’t speak ancient Hebrew I’m not sure I’d understand it as anything other than "image."

I’d guess the passage would be contextually modified by whatever the physical difference in form/state was between the humans in Eden and what they became when God "made them clothing of skin" and kicked them out of Eden.

Just to indicate to you my level of dorkiness, I never anymore even think of the words `exhaust' and `intake' when I think of manifolds.

As I said, I do not know the physics behind all this. However, I will say that the `symmetry' in mirror symmetry is perhaps not what you might think when you hear the word symmetry. It reflects a symmetry in the arrangement of the Betti numbers for the manifold (a Betti number having to do with the manifold's topology). My understanding is that physical connections are somewhat speculative at this point. That does not make it uninteresting, however...

Now I really am going to have to go looking, Andrew! Grandson’s got a birthday party this afternoon, but I’ll go to Cornell and UPenn with it this evening. When you toss in a word like "topology" it suggests a dimensional equation relating to the Big Symmetry question, and I love that whole quest. E.C. did put out a few of these dimensional equations back when we were discussing Perfect Symmetry (big bang stuff), but I’d never heard of godifolds. I’ll get back with you on this one, but thanks for introducing it.

BTW, you do a fair job of explaining. Got my attention! §:o)

Such is the nature of religious symbols. While it may seem strange, I do not find this to be unbelievable or without sense. People tend to believe the unbelievable, which is reasonable enough since the truth can sometimes seem unbelievable.

Uh--yes, now that you mention it, I see that it could be interpreted that way. (I guess perhaps it might be wise of me if I refrain from mentioning that to you again :-)

Very funny, Joy. The lightening also got cable, the VCR and a hairdryer that happened to be plugged in. It was terrible. When the cable man finally got here to fix the cable, I mentioned to him that my modem was fried also and I couldn't get on the internet, and he practically "cried" at my misfortune--at least, tears came to his eyes. I mean, what was I to do with an entire evening with no cable TV and no internet access? :-)

I should reiterate that you will not find (I do not believe) the word `godifold' outside the posts I made containing the word. I made it up (1) to prevent me having to say `special Lagrangian submanifold' and (2) to add some zest and humour to my little story. So look for `mirror symmetry' is the best bet.

You probably already know that `topology' finds many uses in mathematics and physics, so a direct relation to the Big Bang does not follow from what I said :-)

Rosemary -

The trick was(is) : He made us (presumeably in his image) with the ability to reason and question. But, darn it, if we dare use those abilities and come up with the 'wrong' answer, he holds it against us. (Now how is it again that we are made in his image?)

Why ever do you say that? Man is very creative and there are many, many strange ideas and concepts within his ken.

Perhaps megalomaniac is too strong a word, but Christ, being a man, was certainly subject to all the same things our flesh is heir to. Christ was somewhat of a mystic, he fasted, he retreated to the 'wilderness' on what native Americans might term a vision quest. Humans are apt to have hallucinatory experiences under such conditions. Is the case of Amerindian's use of hallucinogenic substances in order to commune with the spirit world any different? In Jesus' case, I do believe he was benignly mad, but that in no way detracts from his legacy to us.

Andrew - Hint on how helpful your description of "dull" sLs (I’ve already turned it into shorthand!) being linear, added to the word topology set off bells. Also the half dimension of a Kahler tells me it does relate to internal symmetry in some way thus is indeed a field-based sub-dimensionality of symmetry. When you add the word "mirror," we’re talking an antimatter particle field (quantum), and at that level of complexity we’re almost to the proverbial Desert preceeding grand unification... or Perfect Symmetry. I’ve been waiting 20 years for someone to dream up the equation for the "anti-instanton," which would be the physical agent of Not-Time, or what you could call the Time Modifier that determines what time "is" and allows it to be measured in a relative universe.

So because I’m a physicist (used to be) rather than a mathematician, I picked up on those clues automatically. I love elegant equations. Many of them do actually pan out in the accellerator (yet another internal combustion reference...), and those march us incrementally closer to the Singularity at the beginning of Time.

Agreed, Andrew, and I haven’t looked it up yet to know. But it often follows that the imaginary dimensionalities (or geometries) of mathematics relate to physical dimensionalities. Depends on the application. Theoretical physicists are right-brained. You’re left-brained, aren’t you? §:o)

We had lightning come right in the picture window once in an Oklahoma spring storm, Cliff! Ball lightning. It flew across the room (we had to duck!) and blew up the television. Sorry to hear about your equipment losses, but I’m still glad your ear wasn’t attached to the telephone at the time!

And thanks, Andrew, for the keywords that found it.

I invite everyone to take a look. I think this is the real thing.

I *knew* there was a reason I went into biochemistry... <g> too much theory makes my head hurt :)

My thanks for the links, Cliff. You’re scaring me...

Scared myself when I read the 1 through 8 overview. Pegged it, didn’t I? I honestly never heard of this before!

The random time function related to the magnetic field is the string. The E-Y-M guage field point of departure (broken symmetry) between electricity and magnetism... possibly leading to the discovery of the monopole and the quantum functionary of time! And I’m guessing "ultrametric topology" and the Euclidian exponentials of p-Adic numbers (CP_2 extremals) are just a newer and better description of the infinitives (singularities), which means they’ve actually started looking closer instead of discarding them outright as error.

Strings and monopoles suggest what I hinted at before as the difference between warp and weft. That’s a right-brained way of describing what is popularly known as the "fabric of the universe." There is the warp, which is pre-set on the loom (geometry or space, the dimensionalities of creation), and weft, which is the actual thread that forms the fabric (time). Color is provided by the existence of particles and forms along the timeline (quantum manifestation), life provides the texture (consciousness). Sort of a wholistic way of divvying up the functions of forces. This is very exciting!

They’re closer than I thought... I’m going to have to digest this one, but many thanks again to both you and Andrew! §:o)

In re-reading my last excited post, I would reverse the fine points of weft in what I’ll call the Grand Tapestry. Form would be the texture and consciousness the color. Did I tell you I’m dyslexic as well as right-brained? §:o)

The introduction (finally!) of the consciousness factor in all this is extremely significant. For all the agnostics and atheists out there, it means we really DO effect the totality of what "is" by our ability to observe and define it. Because we are conscious, we really DO qualify as "central" to the totality of creation, even if we’re not the only ones who are to figure it out. I have a strong suspicion that this development is directly related to what was (and has since 1806) been observed medically with anomalous brain-plumbing. We’re evolving.

Metaphysically, or in terms of the Emerald Tablet of Hermes ("As Above, So Below") this is a spectacular development in the evolution of our intelligence and ability to start putting the puzzle together. We are only missing a few pieces now. One of those pieces is God.

So Larry and Cliff, perhaps God is revealing himself as we speak in the minds of humanity’s theorists. Do you think approximately half will automatically reject it, and another quarter get angry about it?

Well, let us suppose that a missing piece is "god", or the "first cause". What does examination of the handiwork of this "god" tell you about godly nature?

Pretty much what I already knew, Leszek. If we can figure it out before we make evolution (life on this planet) null and void, fighting tooth and nail against our own evil to do so (WMDs), then we will be humbled. We’ll know good and evil, and we’ll be ready for whatever’s next.

What impressed me is that as near as I can tell, TGD is a geometrical replacement for the various GUTs in a form that appears to be compatible with the mathematics of General Relativity. As I have been given to understand, the problem with uniting the various GUTs with general relativity is that the mathematical representations of the two theories are so radically different. It seems, however, with this it might be possible to construct a theory in which General Relativity would be a special case, as Newtonian physics was a special case in General Relativity. For that reason, this feels right, whereas GUT's never did.

This is obviously not mainstream physics, by any means, for the reason given above--apparent incompatibility with General Relativity--the mainstream is wrong, anyway.

Show me where that relates in any way whatever to TGD. According to Matti Pitkänen, the inventor of TGD, TGD is spacetime as a surface in some higher-dimensional space as a solution of the energy problem of General Relativity.

I'm aware of your opinions about human nature, I was wondering whether you had learned anything about the nature of the creator from a contemplation of the details of creation? I know I have.

Alas, I'm virtually ignorant of mathematics... but if this theory is so explanatory, how come I'm not hearing tell of the Nobel prize?

Unfortunately, so am I (virtually ignorant of mathematics). But I thought Joy was carrying it a bit far, and I was having fun trying to return in kind, and in the process, managed to mangle the sentence starting with: "This is obviously not mainstream physics," pretty good :-) But except for a couple of words missing, I thought it was not such a bad a response to her dig at Larry and me.

As for no Nobel prize, as the author freely admits, he has been totally rejected by the establishment and is considered by them to be a "mad scientist." With respect to his ability to publish his research on the internet, and the change in his life that this has brought, he says:

You know what? I have a gut feeling he is right.

I’m still contemplating, Cliff. The significance is staggering, but you’d have to be a physicist to understand it. Yes, warp is entirely different from weft. I am sorry for the weaving analogy here, but I had a spectacular dream once. It involved a cosmic loom. We do know the universe is a mystery, upon which and within which all that "is" is written. I’m really going to have to sleep on this one, my friend. You know it’s where I’ve been going all along (and you know I’m distracted), so I promise to report any firm conclusions!

P.S. Leszek, Nobel Prizes come on an average of a decade after presentation...

Is that a GUT feeling, Cliff? Wild ideas are sometimes proven right...

Joy, from my understanding, there is not going to be a Nobel prize for this guy within his lifetime. If he is right, the ones who would have to agree to grant it will have been proven wrong. And publishing on the internet? Bad politics.

And if he is wrong...

Is there a third alternative that might get this mad genius a Nobel prize? Don't think so.

Have fun dreaming tonight.

I was within degrees (literally) of a Nobel once. That was the identification of neutrinos as the agents of entropy. Someone else got it first.

Depends entirely on how it turns out to be in reality, doesn't it? I've used the Velikovsky model here more than once. Why are we working at cross-purposes?

I was within degrees (literally) of a Nobel once. That was the identification of neutrinos as the agents of entropy. Someone else got it first.

Depends entirely on how it turns out to be in reality, doesn't it? I've used the Velikovsky model here more than once. Why are we working at cross-purposes?

Joy, I was not aware that we were "working at cross purposes." I have repeatedly pointed out that my purpose on this messageboard is to have fun. I have no illusions as to the significance of my existence. My understanding is that I am, and since I am, I try to have fun while I am. I do not understand why this seems to escape you. I also fail to understand why you take offense if I react with less than total enthusiasm to your claims of greatness.

I notice that you do not hesitate to send a dig in my direction if you feel like it, as you did earlier today with the: " So Larry and Cliff, perhaps God is revealing himself..." I have no problem with that. Actually, I got a kick out of it. But it seems that if I return in kind, you complain that I refuse to take you seriously.

I think you should lighten up. The world will not come to an immediate end if I fail to agree with everything you say, or fail to indicate acceptance of every single claim you make. I do not know how close you were to a Nobel prize. I accept that you think you were close. Is that good enough?

And don't you know by now that I am not impressed with the "Velikovsky model." I think Velikovsky was a crackpot, pure and simple. And finally, I really do not care for the "us versus them" mentality to which you seem to have a need. Therefore, I generally go my own way, usually by myself. That does not mean that I do not appreciate you as a person. It just means that I insist on being my own person.

Leszek, Jesus said to Phillip .. "Don't you know me .. .. anyone who has seen me has seen the Father." John 14:9 Another mind blowing claim .. so for an excellent idea of the nature of God, I would suggest Matthew chapters 5, 6 and 7. You simply cannot assess Christ by His followers, we all fail miserably to represent even a fraction. I know that you are aware of this with your background, hope you'll forgive me being unable to resist repeating.

Oh my goodness... I wasn't asking for the nature of god by examining his believers, I *do* know better than that! *LOL* Nor even us atheists... <g>

But it was a serious question... given that we can examine the creation scientifically, is it reasonable to try and infer what god's, um, personality or character is from what we observe? After all, every artist puts a little of her or himself into what they create :)

Only concerning those things for which the left brain is best suited ;-)

I think most researchers in Kahler geometry would be amused to think their work has to do with `the real thing' :-)

Sounds cool, huh. Well, a theorem of Whitney (1930s) says that every manifold (spacetime is a manifold) can be embedded as a submanifold (i.e., surface) in some higher-dimensional Euclidean space (as we think of a two-dimensional sphere as sitting in three-dimensional space). Hopefully there is more to TGD than this.

Mathematics can so easily be made to sound shocking since the language is foreign and exotic to a large part of the population. I am interested as to why you seem to think this randomly selected bit of stuff you found on the internet is particularly fascinating.

Given that the methods and language of science (including and perhaps especially mathematics) seem, for many people, even more obscure and harder to understand than theology, I wonder whether it is surprising that science is held (in effect) to be a mysterious creed with a obscurantist priesthood - in some circles at least :)

If a person cannot understand what a scientist says, such as the mathematical theories of cosmology which are completely opaque to me, why should they regard them as any more credible than theology? It's a serious question for any field, scientific or religious... why should people accept as gospel that which they cannot understand? (We all do this on a day-to-day basis as few of us understand in detail how the machines we use really function, but I'm talking about a deeper acceptance of something as "true", as opposed to a pragmatic acceptance of something that works.)

Perhaps that's partly why we have such problems in public acceptance of theories such as evolution. It's not that they are incredible, it's because they cannot be explained in a soundbite.

I left the world of physics when I discovered I was entirely unsuited to the politics. My choice. Doesn’t mean I can’t sit on the sidelines and cheer when something comes along that looks promising to dig it out of its hole. I don’t care about Nobel prizes or academic chairs. I’m not big on elitism either. I believe in truth. The tendency for science (particularly physics) to actively supress truths which threaten the exhaulted positions of its high priests does not serve humanity very well. For many imaginative and brilliant people, it quickly becomes a monumental waste of time. I think that’s a shame.

I edit my complete thoughts into the line limitations of this forum and no doubt come across as snippy. I mean nothing by it, and make no claims to greatness. When I said that perhaps God was revealing himself and asked what you thought the reaction might be, I was asking a legitimate rhetorical question. The half who will reject it out of hand are a given factor in the general population. The quarter who will get mad about it are those who have a vested interest in falsehood. So long as people in positions of power retain a vested interest in falsehood (on any level), there is nothing God can do to change things.

Just as I thought. Mathematics is most certainly a left-brained function. Which explains why I need a calculator to help my grandson do his 3rd grade homework.

I’ll leave it to mathematicians to work out the elegant equations. I do believe it is perfectly reasonable to expect that a proper solution is going to have to account for time. In order to account for time, time will have to be defined. Every time somebody steps forward to suggest a definition, another ex-physicist is born. This does not strike me as being a particularly efficient method of discovering truth. Supposing, of course, that truth is the goal.

Basically I am fascinated with the attempts to define time. It is a required factor to any elegant equation that purports to unify the forces of creation. More than one ex-physicist has a pretty good idea about the nature of time and now does something different for a living.

Is it honestly so difficult to see what’s going on here? Is science so trustworthy in its ethical perfection that its adherants cannot conceive that it suffers from the very same failings of human nature as every other human institution? Time is the medium of creation. Beyond time we will find the creator. A lot of money, resources and individual megalomania is tied up in delaying the time factor as long as possible. There is a reason for that.

I have avoided a direct answer to a direct question, haven’t I? I apologize, Leszek. I presume that what you have learned about the nature of the creator is that the creator doesn’t exist, as you have asserted your atheism more than once. I won’t argue that position because you have every right to reach and hold that conclusion. I just don’t see that what I may have learned about the nature of the creator is relevant to your conclusion.

Contemplation of the details of creation has taught me that the creator is ultimately brilliant, surprisingly humorous, and easily frustrated. Experience with the creator’s minions - specifically that very not-nice angel - tells me the creator doesn’t much like being distracted from whatever it is he/she/it is doing in his/her/its timespace to intervene on behalf of stupid humans like me.

This is obviously not the psychological profile that you have devined through your own observations. But I do hope it adequately answers the question you asked me.

Cliff: There's nothing inherently wrong with the term "ESP", but you won't find many people who do possess intuitive ability calling it that. Just like you'll never hear a San Francisco resident referring to his city as "Frisco" -- a word that brands one a tourist immediately!

I stumbled on this quote by David Bohm yesterday and liked it:

"Thinking within a fixed circle of ideas tends to restrict the questions to a limited field. And, if one's questions stay in that limited field, so also do the answers".

Cliff, my modem, answering machine, and portable phone were fried in a thunderstorm last summer. I bought a surge protector for my modem, but can't guarantee that it works :). Sorry for speaking of Congress with a capital C. Of course, they don't all think alike, but 70 sponsors of a bill is a little disheartening. The Director of NIH is planning a public information campaign for stem cell research on talk shows, etc. I think Christopher Reeve might be a better advocate.

Leszek, I have read "Consilience." I heard Wilson lecture a few months ago, and although I firmly believe in behavioral biology (formerly known as sociobiology), I'm not as sure about consilience. But the evidence isn't all in yet. I'm a molecular biologist (who never came anywhere close to a Nobel prize), and I don't understand the math and physics on the website that Cliff recommended at all. Maybe that's something I can do when I retire, study math and physics. Calculus and one year of premed physics clearly isn't enough!

Rosemary, you place a great deal of importance in Jesus's words, as reported by others. Since it appears that nothing was recorded for at least 40 years, how can you be so certain that the reports are accurate? And doesn't it strike you as strange that Jesus himself apparently wrote nothing, in an era when letters were apparently kept for decades? I'm not sure he was even literate, although there are some references to his "reading" the scriptures.

Diane, Larry's comment about Jesus' being "benignly crazy" sort of highlights why there does seem to be a difference between physical and mental illnesses as far as religion is concerned. Mental illness affects the way one thinks and believes, as well as how they act. Hallucinogenic drugs likewise. Both are often associated with intense religious fervor, or conversely with "evil" behavior. Crazy people fell compelled to do things--is this free will?

I don't really believe in free will, although I prefer to act as if I do...how else can one act, since we don't know enough to predict in advance what our responses to a particular situation will be? There are people genetically predisposed to cancer, and there are people genetically predisposed to violence (and maybe even to religion)! What happens in both cases depends on what environment they happen to encounter. I'm not talking about single gene defects here, but multigene effects.

The world clearly operates according to physical principles. Perhaps this is because of an intelligent designer, there is no way to know. My experience with this world leads me to believe that the designer, if any, doesn't intervene in human history, and certainly not in my personal life.

Perhaps I was premature with my statement that TGD was the "real thing." But, for some reason, I got that feeling as I was reading it. It felt almost like a religious feeling--like the first time I read something by William Faulkner. In that case, I remember jumping up from my chair and exclaiming: "This is the truth!" This was not quite that radical an experience, but it seemed real. As I remember it, the feeling came while Pitkänen was comparing the predictions of TGD with the predictions of the various GUTs.

I am certainly ready to listen to evidence to the contrary, but there seems to be a consistency about what I have read so far that makes me feel good about it. I am not a mathematician, as I readily admit, and generally, I tend to be quite skeptical, but, with this, I have a good feeling so far.

But look, Andrew, you are a mathematician. Why don't you tell me if you think Pitkänen is misapplying the mathematics. Joy tells me the physics makes sense. I have to listen to her since I am positive that she knows more about it than me. (Of course, I have to be somewhat skeptical of what she says for the same reason--she knows more than me. She could easily lead me astray if she so chose :-)

So you really are laughing at me, I see. Okay, let me explain.

Actually, Andrew, what Pitkänen said was that that was how TGD was originally conceived. I admit I took the statement somewhat out of context--since with almost 20 years of development, there is much more to it now--but I was looking very, very hard for something to answer Joy's dig with, and it seemed to me to be the preface I needed to ask my "searching" question: "What does the Emerald Tablet of Hermes and God have to do with TGD"? that she has, so far, failed to answer :-)

Fair enough, Joy, except for one thing. This was not the first time that you made this particular statement. The first time you made the statement, it was in specific reference and response to my question as to why God does not reveal himself to everyone. When you first made the statement, I found it to have value and specifically addressed the inconsistency that you uncovered. Specifically, I admitted that you had a point and agreed that I could not have it both ways. Remember? Now it seems to me that if you find an inconsistency in one of my statements, it is fair for you to mention it. But if I admit and address the inconsistency, as I did, for you to again bring it up in the form of a taunt, might rightly be considered a dig.

Understand that I was not upset. Indeed, I found it amusing. But you should also understand that when someone issues a dig in my direction as you did in that case, I will do my best to respond in kind. If you accept the response in good humor, then everything is cool. But if you do not, I think I have a right to explain the circumstances of my response.

Fair enough?

Thnak you for the courtesy of replying, even though you apparently assume I'll dismiss it out of hand - I'm not hard-core atheist, you know, just a pragmatic atheist - I explained the difference in previous posts somewhere and won't repeat myself.

Plausible facets of a creative personality - I've often thought myself if god existed, he might be fun to have a beer with... I wonder how you infer the frustration, though? What about features of creation such a parasitism, carnivory and disease? Any thoughts about what they might reflect about divine nature?

Dawn, I'm just getting to the end of Consilience... I rather suspect that he is basically right - that the fundamentals of human development, behavior, culture and morality can in principle be reduced to emergent properties of complex systems governed by simple physicochemical laws and epigenetic algorithms, and that the whole could then be reconstituted from the parts (apart from any contingent phenomena that we find aren't predictably influenced by biology - by that I mean it should be possible to find a biological basis for art appreciation, say, and predict - or rather retrodict - the existence of artists, without being able to predict that Michaelangelo would paint the Sistine Chapel). However, I have a little less confidence than Wilson that it's going to happen anytime soon! :)

Last point first, I did not mean to take a stab at you, Cliff. Your reasoning on why you took it that way is absolutely valid and I apologize. I hadn’t thought it out as well as you did, and I need to be more careful in my editing of whole thoughts. I admit right up front to having a sarcastic streak a mile wide, and that this makes me mostly socially unacceptable in mixed company. When I’m wearing greasepaint and a rubber nose, I can be whatever I like, and I even think about putting on foundation and lipstick as the same role-playing. Here, it’s just me. Warts and all.

This makes me want to cry, Cliff! You can’t know how hard-fought and ultimately gnarly that particular attempt (in my past-life) to tell a very important truth turned out to be. I’ve always fallen back on the hope that it doesn’t matter what happens to us, the truth will assert itself. Perhaps it’s empty hope, but that’s all we have left. We’re actively engaged in attempting to tell a different important truth now. The same Big Truth underlies it all, and when I see (via your links so generously provided) that someone new has further defined what so many of us have tried so hard for so long to define, it makes me happy. I would never purposefully lead anyone astray, I promise!

The fascinating part of the TGD "consciousness" model is that it so closely follows the research from the sites my engine gave me when I first went looking for ICARUS. This is the multinational academic "Icarus" artificial intelligence project.

AI models of consciousness are being constructed. Programs are being designed to facilitate the framework for creative thought, and these are modeled on existing brain research. Because both the physical TGD model and the theoretical Icarus models so closely resemble each other, it is possible that the "answer" to the time factor may be forthcoming from an unexpected source. I very much like the idea that the medical research into brain function is a precursor, as I believe from the evidence I have seen that human beings are currently evolving another level of intelligence/perception. I’m on your side in asserting that evolution is real, Leszek. I just attribute it to design rather than accident.

Based on the obvious resistance to an adequate definition of time eminating from the high priesthood of physics, change is a good thing. The truth will insinuate itself regardless of the opposition, as the puffins who most jelously guard their small kingdoms are not powerful enough to prevent those in separate fields from "accidentally" discovering the truth.

I personally believe it’s time the priesthood was humbled. These are the same quarters which gifted humanity with the means of self-extinction, thus hold themselves out to be the ultimate arbitors of life and death (gods). They richly deserve to be humbled.

I do not agree that there is any specific attempt to avoid proof of the existence of God by the "high priests" of science. I do agree that there is a "high priesthood," that attempts to keep out the ridiculous, and it is possible, from time to time, that in their zeal to avoid association with the absurd, something of value may be rejected. And once that "something of value" is rejected, it is hard for these proud people to admit error and get that something back, and it seems possible to me that this may have happened in the case of Pitkänen and TGD. But I do not think it is typical.

I will say this. If TGD is right, it will eventually prevail. It doesn't matter that that it was published on the internet instead of a peer reviewed journal. The truth is the truth, and the truth will eventually prevail. The scientific method demands it.

(BTW, I wrote this and then checked the board and read this:

Joy, I am absolutely convinced that, in matters of science, the truth--whatever it is--will prevail eventually. But not necessarily so for anything else.

What do the people who supposedly have "intuitive ability" call it? And what do they wish it be called? BTW, I know about San Francisco. My wife is from San Francisco.

Yes I know. It is very true that people of a like mind do tend to flock together and do tend not to question the premises of their beliefs in the sense that outsiders tend to question. I have found that to be true with respect to theists and atheists and, also, possessors of "intuitive ability."

And to people not used to such questions, those questions may sound like attacks. (And, of course, sometimes they really are.)

Not from my point of view. I prefer to hear from someone who knows something. But with respect to the general population, you might be right. I don't know.

I am not aware of any references to Jesus reading the scriptures. I am aware that he was purported to have quoted the scriptures.

Remarkable insight.

I think that is pretty strong evidence. But we have not heard from the other side, and we ought not to leap to final conclusions prematurely. My provisional conclusion is that TGD is an important scientific theory, but we shall see. I think Andrew may have something significant to say if he chooses to address the question specifically.

You sound bitter, Joy, and, perhaps you have just cause. But even if, as you say, the "priesthood" deserves to be humbled, I doubt it will happen immediately. Suppose TGD is true in all respects, given the present state of affairs, it will likely be a generation before it is fully accepted. (But if it is correct, it eventually will most definitely be accepted.)

I don’t pretend to think that my personal perceptions of the nature of my creator are not projections, Leszek. We must understand the totality of ourselves in terms of what we "know" about ourselves. It’s the limitation of this timespace, and I do honestly have some experience in psychology. Someone else may view God to be gentle and sweet, or cruel and heartless... also projections.

Easily frustrated is the very strong feeling I got from the angel, who was not the least bit happy about being there. Actually, that miracle occurred immediately. The bother of having to be there 10 days later, perhaps, just to ask me a question... "Who Are You?"

Or, in popular terms, "who the heck do you think you are to make demands on my valuable time?" That question displayed to me a high degree of frustration. I was flat-out stuck and gave the only answer I could possibly give. What might your answer be in a situation like that? If the angel happened to have you by the throat at the time, that is...

It’s already been 2 generations, Cliff, but I agree. If it’s true, if there is a viable definition of time out there, it will eventually factor itself no matter what. THAT is my hope.

Leszek ..

I think this is a very good question. Trouble is, can I tackle it .. I wish there was a theologian on this board who had done a bit more study than me. The simple answer is yes, God has revealed something of Himself through His Creation. But the alienating effects of sin blinds man from truly seeing God through this means. But apart from that the Bible indicates that even prior to the Fall, man's knowledge of God was derived, not solely from Creation, but from a direct personal communication with God.

So when someone says that God is unknowable, saying man's knowledge is limited to the world of human experience and is thus excluded the knowledge of a transcendant God. This is only valid on the premise that man's knowledge of God is derived through human reason. But a believer will say that the incomprehensible God of the Scriptures is the God who reaches out to man with the revelation of Himself. And that the knowledge we have thus derived, although limited, is nevertheless a true knowledge of His being and work. And we say three main things, first that God is personal. He reveals Himself by names for example. Scripture reveals Him not primarily as the god of nature like other religions, but rather as the God of history. [Within our family, we always break that up and call it His story.] It's all part of the "God has a plan" thing. He makes covenants with people, He is referred to as Father etc.

The second thing we say is that God is spiritual. 'Spirit' has the basic idea of power and activity and that the spiritual nature of God refers to the infinite superiority of His Nature over all created life. And lastly we say God is Other or Holy. The wor

The word 'holy' in both Hebrew and Greek has the root meaning of separateness and is used predominantly in Scripture for a separateness from sin.

Sorry, I'll bet you didn't want all of that did you?

Dawn ..

This isn't an area that interests me much, but there are heaps of very good and scholarly works around on this subject. Suffice to say that modern historical research has added to biblical credibility rather than the reverse. I did investigate it many many moons ago.

The Jews were pretty good with education, however, I'm more interested in why you would ask the question. If you're truly interested, then may I suggest John Bright .. "The authority of the Old Testament .. or F.F, Bruce .. "The defense of the Gospel in the New Testament."

Without God, ethics are meaningless .. so his conclusion was we must live as though there were a God."

Yes, you are absolutely correct. It is, I think, becoming an increasingly serious problem in our society that there are huge portions of the population who do not understand the underpinnings of things which are beginning to affect their daily lives to a larger and larger degree. I guess the most concrete example is in the field of medicine where we must resign ourselves to deities in white coats. It is a dangerous trend, and one that I see no way out of except by having a more scientifically literate population. But, as you well know, you'd have to be pretty darn scientifically literate to come to real grips with much of modern science.

This is a problem which we scientists need to seriously consider. I do not know the best way out of the conundrum.

Well, I would have to know the physics to really answer that question, if I am understanding it properly. What I will say is that the mathematical content and coherence of what I saw there seemed limited, i.e., a lot of big words floating around, but it seemed a mish-mash to me. No real point. But, I could well be wrong; it's really not my area.

No, Cliff, I was really not. I was merely pointing out something of which I expect you were not aware: Whitney's embedding theorem. I would hardly laugh at someone for not knowing that!

A quick peek at my Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler suggests that the term `geometrodynamics' (a new word to add to my spellchecker's dictionary) is not exactly outside the realm of currently accepted views of Einstein's theory. It provides a way in which we can view spacetime as the end result of a `least action' principle. In fact, a fairly close colleague of mine received some sort of prize (not even close to Nobel-like, I should say) for some work in a related area in the late 1970's. So claims of persecution based on one's adoption of TGD would appear to be baseless on the sole consideration of the last two letters in the acronym. As for the letter T, I will remain mute until I have more information. I am not sure what `topological' means in this context.

I don't know the best way out either... I agree that better science education is key, but... The day of the Renaissance Man are long gone, and we can no-longer have gentlemen scientists who had a good grasp of *all* of the science of their day.

So there is no hope of educating everyone, or even anyone, to the minimum level of competence to have a glimmering about the potential impact of every scientific frontier on society. What we need is the element of trust in science, and perhaps that can be done by better education of everyone in some scientific discipline that might interest them, then show that the same basic rules they've been taught to understand their particular bit of the whole are used by others specializing in other bits.. we need to emphasize the value of specialists, but not assume the specialists are perfect experts.

Individual comprehensive understanding is now well beyond us, but this trust in our collective understanding needs improvement. Sensationalism has had a lot to do with the erosion of this trust, but we simply cannot have underinformed laypeople dismissing the fears of doctors or ecologists, say, because they can't understand what they are saying, or because trust has been lost because prior claims were launched to great heights before they came tumbling down in ignominious refutation. That way lies madness and destruction.

We are of a similar mind. I think the key lies in teaching people about how science is conducted, rather than in details about chosen subject areas, although a good deal of the latter is essential too. But the details can be forgotten as long as one remains cognisant of the method behind it all. Because, let's face it, science is not mysticism, and people seem to turn to mysticism when perhaps a more scientific approach may be beneficial.

I agree that it is important not to have our trust in science eroded to the point where people ignore important warnings from the informed. However, I also think people would do well to have the ability to reason for their own selves, and maybe choose an informed path of their own making by doing the proper research. And the only way to do this is to teach people to reason, a hard thing to do in my experience.

Leszek, there is a lot of research now on using computer "neural networks" for diagnosing cancer, as you no doubt know. It is fascinating that these networks do better than the physicians in predicting outcomes, even though it was the thought processes of the physicians that trained the networks. Eventually, the "art" of medicine may disappear, completely replaced by science. Even more interesting is the possibility of using DNA instead of silicon chips in computers.

Rosemary, although your post was meant for another board, I will unequivocally state that there are many moral atheists who don't find their their lives or ethics meaningless.

Did anyone else see the CNN report on the Italian monk Padre Pio, who has just been beatified by the Pope? He presumably had stigmata for 50 years, and was in great pain from the constant bleeding. The day before he died, the wounds all healed and left no scars. A panel of Vatican doctors examined him both before and after, and supposedly all was as stated. There were questions about him, and I certainly would want a more thorough scientific examination by disinterested parties, but it is t

Cliff: We need both Harold Varmus (Director of NIH and Nobel laureate) and Christopher Reeve to explain the importance of stem cell research. Plus about 100 other scientists and potential beneficiaries.

Rosemary: There are numerous Biblical scholars who question the Bible's complete historical accuracy. Their arguments are compelling, especially if you tend to believe that the Bible is full of inconsistencies anyway. I don't have the references on hand, but I can look up if you are interested. Probably you aren't, but I will look for the ones you recommended. Unless they are reasonably recent, they may not contain some of the more recent thinking. On the other hand, one generally finds what one is seeking.

I suspect some neural network at some stage will emerge into intelligence (ours did), and at the very least I can see such automata taking over the diagnostic and prognostic roles of physicians, as those functions are in significant part algorithmical, asking sets of questions along a decision tree, the next question depending on the result of the previous one... intuition I simply see as the unconscious application of algorithmic rules. I can't see them replacing physicians though :) not till they learn to smile and develop a bed-side manner!

Don't know about DNA computers - I've never really gotten to grips with the concept and can't really imagine how one would work, but since DNA is a way of storing digital information, why not? You'd have to protect them not only against viruses, but against bacteria though! :)

Incorrect assumption Dawn, I have been very interested, it's just that these days theology itself is of more interest. Before I continue, the first of the books I recommended yesterday, I haven't actually read, it was recommended to me. the FF Bruce book was published in 1959, which you no doubt consider too old, and yet I thoroughly recommend it. He also wrote "The New Testament Documents, are they reliable" in 1960

The Bible has been the subject of an enormous amount of study and criticism, if the Bible was universally considered as an authoritarian source book for religious truth, we wouldn't have any questions would we? However it is impossible to deal with such things in these posts, truly impossible, it takes scholars books to deal with. One such scholar is a personal friend of mine, Professor Edwin Judge of Macquarrie University, New South Wales, Australia. I revel in his lectures when I can attend, but I personally don't have that sort of scholarship. [cont]

The most common charges made against it are 1, that it is myth, chiefly said because of the recounting of miracles in it's pages. Another reason if because of parallel accounts between such things as the biblical view of the flood and that found for example in Babylonian mythology. Also because there exist similarities between events surrounding Jesus and portraits of the gods found in Greek mythology. The next most common charge is that it conflicts with science, a lot of this is the result of the church's condemnation of various scientists. Strange that the same thing seems to be going on today, but it's no longer the ruling church doing it, but other rulers!!! Some argue that the Bible teaches a view of reality that is utterly in conflict with the assured results of modern scientific inquiry. Some allege that the Bile teaches a primitive, prescientific view of the universe which is no longer tenable. The third most common charge is the one you made, that the Bible is filled with contradictions and I truly get quite angry about the sheer number of people who accept this charge without doing the necessary homework to see if this is in fact so. Finally there is the charge that the Bible is not accurate historically.

I'm not going to answer these charges, I'm just letting you know that I know what they are and have investigated, as have countless others, the one thing in your post that I think you have right, is that many folk "hear what their itching ears want to hear," forgive me if I say that I try very hard not to be one of them.

I would be interested in an overview of the work your friend did if you can recall the gist of it, Andrew. Basically, I’d like to know how mathematicians define the terminology differently.

GD in the physical application as I’m understanding here is dimensional, and the word "topological" relates to internal symmetry. The half Kahler field dimension, tied to "string topology" indicates a separation between the electric and magnetic fields, leading to reasonable postulation for the existence of a magnetic quanta, or "monopole." The energy level required to break the internal symmetry of electromagnetism and its myriad field quanta (we call it "The Zoo") is more than we’ve got available, thus at this level theory is all there is unless monopoles still exist and can be observed somehow. This is highly questionable, so it’s theoretical on both mathematical and physical levels for now, Andrew.

The internal symmetry of a magnetic monopole would be unlike any other quantum particle. Its vector field would exist in a "hedgehog" configuration, and this configuration cannot be renormalized by any symmetry equation without running into a singularity (infinity). That’s where the "string" comes in, which connects to the charge-conservation virtual particle which simultaneously exists in a separate dimensionality.

(Monopoles, Part II)

A monopole would be absolutely stable (never spontaneously transforms) due to the vector configuration. No one has ever observed a proton decay (the previous "most stable particle" winner), but many theories describe conditions under which it could happen. Magnetic monopoles would never die.

The exciting part for me is that if it exists, the monopole and its infinite "string" carries the extradimensional connection into this timespace. I am still looking into the consciousness factor, but I’ll try to translate it as soon as I’ve figured it out. This is where I suspect the time baseline may be lurking... the difference between time and Not-Time.

Theoretically, the strings end in "Random Time," which would suggest infinite alternate universes and that’s ridiculous. Consciousness would be the factor that determines the timespace of the virtual particle in the model, as I’m reading it thus far.

Boy, Dawn! I hope you do better explaining cancer research than I’m able to explain bizarre little beasties! I should probably stick to miracles, but I consider creation to be the Biggest Miracle of all. I try to keep track of developments! §:o)

I beg to differ, but only in a nit. The "everyman" can not handle the depth and intracacies of every science, but he can understand the process and enough of the foundation to appreciate the structure being built, much in the same way that an observer, with no special artistic talent, can appreciate a painting.

Does it help to view the macro, 3D universe as topologicaly bound by the micro, 10D universe? We are on the (anterior ?) surface of a 10D version of a Klien bottle trying desparatly to peek through the neck.

I can (opens his Abraham and Marsden [1978] to Section 5.5.10). The Einstein equations in a vacuum are Lagrangian field equations for a certain Lagrangian on spacetime. As such, they are equations whose independent variables are those of spacetime - in particular, there are four of them. The number of dependent variables is many but finite (the number of components of the curvature tensor with its indicial symmetries). One wishes to regard these as equations with one independent variable. To do so, one must work with independent variables being the set of Riemannian metrics (recall that spacetime has a Lorentzian metric) on a compact three-dimensional manifold. In particular, the number of dependent variables is infinite. Proceeding formally, one may derive Hamiltonian evolution equations using this infinite-dimensional configuration space. This was done by, for example, Dirac, Wheeler, and Arnowitt, Deser and Misner in the late '50s and early '60s. My colleague concerned himself with working out the technicalities associated with working in infinite-dimensions (these are formidable).

In brief, and without doing violence to the concepts, this is the best I can do :-)

Let me see if we can reach a common terminology. As a mathematician, I try very hard to use my words carefully :-)

What do you mean by `dimensional'? I would say that `topological' probably relates here to things like compactness, completeness, or algebro-topological issues as these are, in my very limited experience, of concern to GR people. What does `symmetry' here mean to you? When I see symmetry, I think group. What's the group?

What's a Kahler field?

Separation?

Tell me what `monopole ' means. My understanding is that one of Maxwell's equations is exactly the assertion that free magnetic monopoles do not exist.

[cont'd]

Again this word symmetry. What is its meaning here?

Particle symmetry makes me think principal fibre bundle (gauge theory to physicists, I think). In my thinking process, this means that particles are fields on spacetime. The set of field values at a point in spacetime has some symmetry, so one has a collection of possible field values, equivalent up to symmetry, and one over each point in spacetime. Is this a possible interpretation of what symmetry means here?

I know what a vector field is. When is one in a hedgehog configuration?

Symmetry equation?

Vector configuration?

Sorry for all the questions, but a common terminology is essential. Otherwise we are talking at cross-purposes. And might I ask for as much concision and as little speculation as you can muster :-) I have tried to limit my terminological queries to those things you discussed which seem `basic'. I merely want a Joy-Andrew dictionary.

CLIFF!!!!!!!!

Anybody heard from Cliff today out in Okie-Land? Hear things got a little windy there last night...

You okay out there?

Just for giggles: (I'll see how closely my answers come to Joy's.)

Separation I would refer to this as a 'de-coupling' into two distinct forces.

hedgehog The force is topologicaly bound onto itself. This is very perverse, kind of like a space-time mobious hoop that occupies no (or not very dang much, I'm unclear on this) space.

Is this possible? Beats me. Although it sounds like fun I think it is analogous to peeling one surface of a 2D realm from the other; An interesting thought exercise, but not permitted in this universe.

Keith, I think they already do appreciate science as if it were a piece of art, and that's the trouble! *LOL* I want them to be in a position where they not only appreciate this art form, but have had some experience in practising it, and have some deep knowledge of its power and limitations.

I don't think we're in real disagreement, but I want people to have to tools to cut through the current barrage of "information". We are at the stage where it is cheaper to invent information than to work to discover it - any idiot can post any stupidity on the net, and will find a coterie of willing fools who'll consider it gospel. And that's a work of art too. Photographs are readily doctored, and we are in danger of having the well of facts poisoned, so that nobody knows what is true and what's a fabrication.

In this atmosphere, no-one will trust any source of information, unless its reputation is rock-solid, and there are darn few of those :(

Hmmm... the objects which were to be `hedgehogged' were vector fields. I cannot interpret what it means for a vector field to be `topologically bound onto itself.'

To my thinking, if you peel a surface from a 2D realm (I am guessing realm=manifold), then nothing is left. That is a 2D realm is a surface, so there's nothing left after the peeling has occurred.

Yes, realm=manifold (last time I used the term "manifold" I spent five posts trying to explain it!) :-)

I agree, and that was my point. EM is electromagnatisn, not electro & magnatism. :-)

Frankly -- I am just pulling at straws with the hedgehog thingy.

Ah, okay. I suspected as much, but was just making sure you were not saying more than you appeared to be.

Wow, Andrew. You can open a book and just look up the fancy words, while I’m reduced to attempting to explain the conceptual framework of subatomic physics off the top of my head! It really has been 20 years since I’ve done anything but follow the simplistic explanations that become public knowledge. So I’m working with concepts that may have changed their definitions...

Definitions of some of these things may currently be closer to the purely mathematical definitions, as the physical quest is limited by the power available to experiment and observe. It’s theoretical on both levels from this point, and physicists are reduced to looking at the math and deciding the most likely "truth" based on what they have previously observed and can logically predict.

So please forgive my imprecision. I’ll give you the theoretical physical concept definitions from my right-brain, which is all I can do, and hope they make rational sense to you (and perhaps to you as well, Keith!) §:o)

Dictionary, 1 of 3

Field - In Quantum dynamics, essential reality in timespace boils down to the existence and interaction of energy fields and their resulting quanta or particles of matter. A field is irreducible - it has no "parts," though the resulting quanta contains component fields relating to their internal symmetry or stability. Fields are physical entities defined in mathematical terms (field equations) describing how they change or transform and interact. Every kind of field is classified by charge, mass and spin, which are predictable.

Spin - The predictable transformation of a given field if rotated, which corresponds to the actual spin of the quanta of the field. The EM field has a spin of one, corresponding to the spin of photons. Dirac has a spin of one-half (electron), and other fields have spins of zero, three-halves, or two corresponding to respective particles. Spin relates directly to spacetime symmetry (the properties of the quanta).

Vector - The vector of a field relates to its speed and direction. This is the "other half" of the Uncertainty Principle, relating to what can be measured if one is looking at the field itself rather than at the quantum particle of a field. Vector does relate to the internal symmetry of the quantum by inference. By knowing the vector, the mass, spin and charge of the expected quantum can be predicted.

Charge - There are various kinds of charges (like electric charge). The charge of fields relates to both external (spacetime) symmetry and internal symmetry. Internal symmetry allows transformation of the several subcomponents of a given field into one another without changing the physical manifestation of the field. Internal symmetry relates to the stability of the quanta.

Dictionary, 2 of 3

Symmetry - The word "symmetry" implies that something does not change. In this case, the particle of matter which holds a charge does not change upon rotation (spin) and transformation of the internal comoponent fields. Invariance implies the conservation of some value. The internal symmetries of multicomponent fields are the "conservationists."

The field entities that possess mass, spin and charge are defined by symmetry operations. The introduction of gauge fields (Yang-Mills) is sort of a renormalization operation which allows internal symmetries to remain unchanged despite interactions. These fields operate separately on the internal field components to ensure conservation of energy (charge, mass, spin), so are the medium of internal symmetry.

The Yang-Mills field symmetries operate in nature but don’t really exist in nature. They operate indirectly two ways - first, they can be precise but completely hidden symmetries which maintain stability, or secondly, they can be broken symmetries (which relates to probability factors). To break the internal symmetry of Y-M fields, another gauge field is required. It’s called the "Higgs Field." It has no spin, but does have mass. The Higgs field predictably breaks the internal symmetry of a particle by choosing the most stable outcome of the break (the physical manifestation of the broken Y-M gauge fields). Thus far these are identified as the W and Z particles, which have immense mass. These particles exist only if the internal symmetry of a stable field is broken. They do not occur naturally.

Dictionary, 3 of 3

Big Bang - Broken gauge symmetry as practiced in high-energy particle physics relates (physicists believe) directly to the first moments of creation, or the big bang event. Extrapolating backwards in time to the very first nanoseconds of the event, where all matter and energy proceeded from one mathematical point of origin, science hopes to find answers to "why" the universe is the way it is. The model includes an expansionary phase, where the dimensions of space are established instantaneously (for all intents and purposes), and a reheating phase where matter is created as a gas of elementary particles.

Everything which proceeds from creation boils down to phase transition. All material transformations are phase transitions of fields. The implication for physicists studying creation is that going backwards (artificially breaking internally stable symmetries) will eventually lead to the discovery of the original field (that Singularity at the beginning of Time) and its nature. Each "era" of the 300,000 years the big bang represents a broken symmetry or phase transition of the originally unified field. This is the search for Perfect Symmetry.

This is how physicists defined things back in ancient history, at any rate. I am personally uncomfortable with the absence of a proper definition of "Time," or adequate application of relativity as it concerns time on this level. But that’s a Primer, not a Dictionary...

But I’m betting you know all this better than I do, Andrew! §:o)

Okay, you guys...

Primer, Part I

Magnetic Monopole - The universe is full of electrically charged particles (protons, electrons), but nobody’s ever observed a particle that carries a magnetic charge. Yet we know magnetism exists. A monopole would be the quantum particle of magnetism.

The problem with a quantum of magnetism is that magnetism is a "dipole" field. It has a north pole and a south pole, and the field lines never end. They just loop from one pole to the other forever. A monopole would have field lines which either entered or exited, rather than both, and the quantum would have to enjoy the expected conservation of its polar "charge."

Monopoles can theoretically exist only if there is a specific value to the magnetic charge. Work thus far indicates the value is huge, which means we’d readily be able to detect monopoles if they existed just by virtue of their interactions. Dirac’s solution to the problem of dipolarity is a "string" which carries the opposing polarity into a separate dimension. If the south end of a monopole which carried a north charge in this timespace were in an entirely different timespace, each timespace would view the end which interacted in that particular timespace as a true monopole in which charge would be conserved.

Primer, Part II

In the 1970s the Yang-Mills gauge field theories of symmetry were applied to monopoles, and further properties could be predicted. These solutions to the field theories describe monopoles as "topological solitons." The topological configurations correspond to vector fields, thus relate directly to internal symmetry. Most elementary particles are topologically vectored in what is known as a "vacuum configuration," where the arrows indicating field vector all point in the same direction.

Magnetic monopoles would be vectored in what is known as the "hedgehog configuration," which is imagined by pointing the arrows outward from the center in all directions at once. Sort of "hedgehog defensive mode." Rotation of the field to make all the arrows point in one direction leaves a line of discontinuity because the arrows cannot all be rotated in the same direction (clockwise or counterclockwise) to accomplish the phase transition. The line separates the direction of rotation and becomes the Dirac "string."

A hedgehog soliton cannot dissipate into the vacuum, thus it is ultimately stable. The monopole’s "topological charge" is absolutely conserved. The theoretical work on how the monopole cannot be transformed into the vacuum has led to theoretical work on other hedgehog vectored solitons related to time... like "instantons"...

Which could possibly mean that a proper definition of time is on the horizon. Wouldn’t that be nice? §:o)

Thanks, Joy, for putting much effort into the response. I get the gist of much of what you say, and some of it rings consistent with certain conceptions I have. Sadly, I would need to become better versed in physics-speak to really be able to put it all into a context I can understand. The ideas I know are all things I can comprehend, but the lingo is just out of reach for me.

If you think about this, it is a bit surprising. I mean, generally speaking, a mathematician and a theoretical physicist can often not communicate with one another! To show just how dire things are, I attended a class in basic geometry and topology by the guy who invented string theory, and I could not come to grips with much of what he said. And it was basic stuff I already understood! (I sat in on the class because... well... he was the guy who invented string theory.) I am slowly becoming more knowledgeable in the jargon used by the physicist, but since it is slightly outside my area, I cannot concentrate on it as much as I'd like.

Now, those words I use are no more fancy than the words you use, are they? They are perhaps unfamiliar to you, however.

If you would be patient enough to indulge me, let me ask one more thing. For me, `spacetime' means a 4-dimensional manifold with a Lorentzian metric. What is it for you?

Another stumper, Andrew! What’s a "Lorentzian metric?" I view spacetime as the dimensionality of the universe, but that’s because physical manifestation has always interested me far more than elegant equations. I am not math-brained at all, but tend to see whole pictures (haven’t even gotten to "color" yet, and all those charming quarks!). Which explains pretty well my problem with the imprecision of time.

Mathematicians can view time for purposes of creating elegant equations as a constant factor rather than a relative factor. As a physicist, I understand time to be more relative than constant. So where you can view spacetime as 4 dimensionalities, I get to view it as a little more random and unruly than that. The Uncertainty Principle and probability factors that relate to the individual manifestation of any given field render time to be the ultimate determining factor. This indicates a definite need for a good definition of what time "Is." So far, there isn’t one.

(You knew I couldn’t do it in 34 lines!...)

I keep track when I can, because I am personally interested in the way this all works out. I believe very strongly in the intelligent (purposeful) creation of the universe to be precisely what it is. I further believe consciousness to be intimately associated with the nature of time. Thus I must come to a preliminary conclusion that spacetime contains factors which have not yet been factored in, and that these will lead to the discovery of separate dimensionalities.

For those of us who claim to enjoy consciousness, I expect that the anomalous brain plumbing I’ve been talking about as an evolutionary development will serve to "turn on" genetically hardwired sensory equipment in the human biological machine. The machine which allows our consciousness to interact in spacetime, analogous to the "Human Quantum." The new senses, I would postulate, relate to the dimensionalities of spacetime which we have not yet discovered or factored into our equations.

...But that’s because I see a colorful tapestry rather than just a thread. I don’t think we’re all that close to a final definition of what "Is," but I think we are very close to answering all previous questions. That will lead to new questions, but that’s okay. I believe that we are close to defining time, and that the definition of time is going to lead to recognition of a separate timespace which coexists our own in a separate level of time I call it Not-Time. I also believe this separate timespace will partially answer the "God" question and jump-start humanity back to the right track. At least, I believe it CAN do so... §:o)

I was really just meaning spacetime as seen in GR, not spacetime as `real' spacetime! As to the latter, I do not have any notion in my mind. To ambitious an enterprise for me :-)

Well, in my view of the spacetime of GR (which, I think, would be agreed upon by mathematicians and physicists alike), you will note that time just plain does not appear. How much more relative can you get! :-)

But it DOES factor into TGD, magnetic monopoles and the topology of physical reality, Andrew! I do honestly understand that you and I are looking at entirely separate equations, so to speak (even if I’m an equational idiot in reality). It’s the separate factor which will (hopefully?) resolve the discontinuity. Is this "Chaos" or "Consciousness?"

But isn't 'time' really just symptomatic of the granularity of the manifold? "Time," as a distinct entity, isn't really anything at all, now is it? :-)

Is there a distinction? (You need to look past the obvious joke to see the real question.)

Jeez, yet another joker (clown)!!! Yes, the granularity of the manifold is related to time, but it is NOT the definition of time. The "lumpiness" of spacetime at the beginning did indeed lead to the matter-antimatter discontinuity and development of stars, galaxies, clusters, superclusters... and eventually to life. This function of time is, I believe, the manifestation of "Intent," or the preordination of the universe.

I think you understand this as wholistically as I do... or, in the immoral words of Firesign Theater...

"How can you be in two places at once if you’re not anywhere at all?"

(pssst... Keith...) Now, THAT's "synchronicity!" §:o)

Once again for those interested, the link is:

Once again for those interested, the link is:

Thanks for the concern, Joy. That was some significant weather in Oklahoma City, wasn't it. That was a big one. We had a small twister in Tulsa around midnight last night also. I had my machine disconnected all night after my recent experience. Just that time of year.

Glad to hear you're okay! Our relatives got missed, though a home they used to own in Moore is now rubble along with the entirety of the subdivision...

Season's starting out with a "bang" this year, n'est pas?

I suggest these links:

Joy, much of what you have said recently is way over my head. I trust that you know what you are talking about, but it would be useless for me to try to respond. But I would appreciate any comment you may have with respect to the meaning of the following taken from the first paragraph of the first link I referenced:

As I understand the above, Pitkänen says that General Relativity leaves a major problem with respect to energy conservation, and TGD attempts to solve that problem. Do you understand the means by which TGD attempts to do this, and is it something you might attempt to explain?

Joy, I think I should have asked, first, if, in your opinion, General Relativity actually does leave this major problem with respect to energy conservation, and then if you think TGD solves it.

Reply to your post on religion today.

I cannot just let you lump a statement of mine with one of Mark Noonan's, now can I. I think you missed the point of what I was saying... I did not mean to conclude there is disagreement regarding the applicability of both GR and QM - quite to the contrary! I merely mean to say that since neither are universally applicable, they are inevitably subject, like all things in science, to being overturned by something better in the future. Don't forget, Newtonian mechanics was widely regarded as infallible, but is not actually an accurate description of our universe. Of course, it is a very useful theory - I ought to know as I do research in a field not unrelated to generalisations of Newtonian mechanics. And note that Newtonian mechanics is false. Some retort that it is a special case of special relativity, that when the speed of light becomes infinite. But the speed of light is not infinite, now is it :-) I see similar things happening with GR and QM. They are unlikely to be final theories, but will retain their usefulness, even though as ultimate truth they may fail.

Contrast this view with Mark Noonan's that GR is absurd because it says that if he keeps accelerating he will never exceed the speed of light. I hope you can see that what I say is somewhat more... er... subtle, and is in keeping with the spirit in which science ought to be conducted :-)

Let me see what I can "net" here....

The 4D manifold of space-time is the univers' gravitational field. If you flip the coin over and abscribe matter as a property of this gravitational field, rather than gravity as a propety of matter; a great many thngs about relativity begin to make more sense.

Things only get really bizzare when gravitational aceleration is infinite (singularities and matter acelerating at C.) We regularly accelerate electrons to 99.99%+ of lightspeed without creating black holes. You begin to get some rather peculiar relativistic effects at those accelerations, but nothing absurd.

Anyway.... Is "falsafiable" the only significant variation between science and religion? It seems as though both persuits attempt to propose a "story" that reliably explains observed phenomona. The only diffence seems to be that science requires that the story be verifiable via falsafying conditions while most religions tell their followers not to listen to chalenges. hmmmm....

To be a pedant, the Lorentzian metric really is the gravitational field. Thus one can have two manifolds with the same topology (or indeed, be identical as sets), but whose gravitational fields are different.

As concerns the quest for knowledge, I'd have to say it is certainly the biggest difference. But religion also concerns itself with a whole bunch of stuff on whose subjects science properly remains mute.

It is interesting to speculate on the value of falsifiability. Logically it seems indefensible. That is, consider the proposition `One should only consider as candidates for truth those things which are falsifiable.' If one applies this statement to itself, one seems to reach a contradiction, since I know of no way to verify that the statement is falsifiable. Nevertheless, in practice I adopt the proposition as a valuable tool for gaining knowledge, and my choice to do so seems to validate itself empirically.

I’ve very much enjoyed communicating with you on this level, Andrew, and I do appreciate your attempts to see where I’m coming from.

My father was a left-brained mathematician. He took everything literally, which meant we had a good deal of discussing to do before we could agree on anything. He did recognize right away that I didn’t see things the same way he did. Made sure I got private art lessons when I demonstrated talent, and encouraged me to develop. I learned perspective and texture and color, I learned to see. And I learned to remember. Reproduce. Conceptualize. Right-brain stuff.

My older sister is also left-brained. She and I spent most of our childhoods trying to decide which branch of science would best benefit from our dual talents. Exobiology (so we could ride a spaceship), oceanography (so we could have our own submarine)... she’d be the brains and I’d be the imagination. We grew up and went our separate ways, but we did learn the value of the "other" POV.

General Relativity, in my opinion, does indeed have problems conserving energy in a curved space, Cliff. Not only is there no adequate definition of gravity, there’s no definition of time at all. Special Relativity tried to refine the time factor (and at least forced physicists to begin considering it), but also falls short. Quantum mechanics ignores time completely (time doesn’t follow its own rules in the subatomic world), thus the inability for the two models to mesh.

I admit I’m having some trouble relating to only 2 dimensions. I’d guess this is the easiest way to describe the tunneling action from one level to another, and conceptually this works even without a definition of what the subminimum Kahler "beastie" is. Subatomic particles tunnel between timespaces all the time, in no time, transforming at will. Consciousness also operates outside of time.

I think it’s the vacuum "degeneration" concept I’m having trouble with. I haven’t seen a hedgehog/vacuum interaction described yet, but it is implied. Degeneration can be seen as the point of separation between the electric (Kahler) field and the magnetic field - or more likely the release of a magnetic quantum from the photon thought energy. Sort of like "dropping a ball" that instantaneously tunnels to the next level while leaving a "string" pole on the original level as I’ve described. There’s more work to be done, but I like the wholistic approach Pitkänen displays. It’s a big step in the right direction.

I was, I think, a little casual with you in my reply to your question a few days ago concerning my left-brainedness. I should be quite clear that my right brain is very active too, even when it comes to my work. I think this is true of many, but not all, scientists. Progress in science is made (a) by having great ideas and (b) by having the skill to carry out these ideas to a scientifically valid conclusion. Both of these are essential activities in the progress of science. Even in mathematics - which I get the feeling you regard as a pure left-brain activity - creativity is indispensable.

Take, for example, Fermat's Last Theorem. It took creativity to be able to recognise that there was something interesting here; this was Fermat's great contribution. But what he left was merely a guess, and as such has very little intrinsic value, until it can be proven. And so when it was proved 300+ years later, that was as valid a contribution as the initial conjecture itself.

I think that in mathematics this disparity between the left and right brain aspects gets accentuated by virtue of the fact that in mathematics we can prove things. Thus an extremely well-supported conjecture is of little value in mathematics, except as a possible focal point for further work (e.g., the conjecture of Fermat was useful even when unproved because it served as the jumping off point for a great deal of interesting mathematics which has been useful for reasons outside of proving Fermat's Last Theorem). This differs from other the sciences where a very well-supported conjecture is as good as it gets. This difference in scientific practice is manifested by people like me being sticklers for precision, and by people like you calling me left-brained :-)

Please a definition for Lorentzian metric, Andrew? Is this basically the representation of space curvature around gravity wells? How is time represented (as a line direction/value), and how can the gravitational fields differ in identical sets?

I think Keith is close to the mark on matter being a property of gravity rather than the other way around. This proceeds logically from the internal symmetry-breaking done in accelerators, where each broken symmetry results in ever-more massive particles. It would appear that tremendous mass is bound by the internal symmetries of the smallest particles of matter, in such a predictable way as to suggest that there’s a "gravity well" at the bottom of every particle of every atom in existence. It is possible that both mass and gravity are symmetry functions. The "lumpiness" of the universe, which led to the congregations of matter we observe, could be a time-related symmetry - a dimension - rather than an attractive force between separate masses.

Which is why I didn’t define "mass" in the Andrew/Joy Dictionary...

You’re absolutely right that science uses both precision and imagination, Andrew. It’s the politics of one over the other that sometimes gets in the way of discovery, so I hope some of the "wild ideas" out there start generating more crossover work!

I attribute my limited ability to focus on details to my preference for jumping right into a concept just to see what can be seen. It’s actually more of a personal preference based on my frustration with numbers and my family’s impatience with my disinterest. Heck, I lived in a house full of mathematicians. I let THEM play with numbers.

That’s plain old dyslexia, I’m afraid. A particularly permeable left-right hemisphere connection. I could write in longhand backwards better than forwards, so finally took to printing so I wouldn’t freak my teachers out so bad. I’d get all excited approaching the solution to some equation, only to come out wrong because I’d reversed some numbers at the beginning. Quickly decided math was not my forte, though I did well in geometry. Just have to see what I’m dealing with, I guess. §:o)

It is conceivable that faster-than-light fields (thus particles) exist all around us, but our perceptual hardwiring isn’t programmed to sense them because we happen to exist in the "Let There Be Light" spacetime. I don’t view light speed as an absolute boundary on what is possible. The quantum ability to tunnel through time (therefore space) means there are ways to get around the limitation.

I prefer to think in terms of phase transition... or maybe phase transcendence. The "speed of thought" is a lot faster than the speed of light, because thought isn’t timebound. Consciousness is not bound, it just gets to experience space and time through the "quantum" of its machine for as long as the machine lasts in this spacetime.

By thinking in terms of phase transition, it’s possible to view our short-term existence in this spacetime as a particle function of a field - sort of a "consciousness field." The phase transition into particle form would represent the location of our awareness along the wave. Sort of a short stopover of our consciousness on its way "elsewhere." There may be an infinite number of "elsewheres" along the wave. Or the wave could have a point of propagation and point of absorption (beginning and end). Or the wave could work like a magnetic field and circle forever between poles. Or...

Okay, here's what a Lorentzian metric really is. It is a smooth assignment to each tangent space of a nondegenerate, symmetric (0,2) tensor of index 1. Okay, so that is meaningless...

Well, associated with a Lorentzian metric as I defined it above is another tensor called its curvature tensor. I guess the idea is that in regions of low mass concentration, this tensor is near to zero. One would like something nicer than that, I guess, since one hears about `curvature' as a number, not a tensor. Well, this can be done by associating to the curvature tensor various scalar values which somehow indicate its `size.' I am being vague.

It is really not represented per se. Rather one talks about time-like, space-like, and light-like - surely these terms are familiar to you.

If you look at my definition of Lorentzian metric, the answer becomes clear: by a different assignment of a nondegenerate, symmetric (0,2) tensor of index 1.

I am no expert on this, but my feeling is that matter and gravity ought to be sort of equated, rather than one taking precedence over the other. In GR, the two things are specified together as satisfying some nasty partial differential equation.

Joy Busey - Wednesday, 05/05/99, 3:17:18pm

You are representative of an all too common notion that mathematics has anything to do with numbers. There is a joke that goes, `There are three kinds of mathematicians, those who can count and those who cannot.' I am definitely in the third group :-) I would say that doing well in geometry is a far better indication of one's mathematical aptitude than the ability to quickly multiply large numbers in your head.

Well... My perception of the universe is of a vast information system. There could easily be a multitude of "programs" running in their own, isolated, "windows."

Light speed is conceptualised as the serial assumption of data across a medium. Since there are bounding limits to this medium (geometricaly) there is a maximum "velocity" or "rate" of exchange.

However....
Since all points in space can be mapped to the same point (the monobloc) you can describe a serial path that covers less "space" by manipulating the "time variable." S.R. suggests this possibility to me (and others, judging by the number of explorers playing with the dielectric constant!)

If I am grasping your explanation (questionable), this metric is a renormalization device to get around topological irregularities? I understand the value of renormalization in dealing with the "Big Picture" equations, and you’re right that I do have a fair conceptual grasp of what those equations describe. I even have a scientific calculator that does all the hard stuff for me, which is infinitely useful. I’m just 20 years behind on terminology for physics, and nearly half a century behind on math!

You keep saying you’re not dealing with "real" spacetime, and I’d like to know how you do see what you’re dealing with. As I said, we don’t have enough (harnessed) power available to get past Higgs, if we can ever manage to get that far. The final steps in the scientific quest for the "why/how" of creation will have to be entirely theoretical. We may accidentally happen upon a cosmological event or an observable interaction, but smashing atoms is a dead-end job.

We may see some neutrino interactions one of these days. This will tell us a lot, as neutrinos travel at the speed of light and do not interact directly with matter much. There’s a whole class of postulated faster-than-light particles too, which never interact with matter. These originated as "renormalization" factors to account for "missing" mass/energy.

Now, we pretty much know that there’s something about the nature of the universe that we’re not factoring or we’d already know all the answers. Physicists like to think they do have all the answers, they just don’t have the "proofs" yet. How that relates to the "real" world you and I live in is not something they’re able to explain (or even care about very much), but I’ve heard it said by more than one physicist that "the end of science" is at hand. Arrogant, aren’t they?

This is why I mentioned the "As Above, So Below" emerald tablet, a relic associated with Metaphysics. Metaphysics is the root of alchemy, which is the precursor of modern science. Metaphysics is also a spiritual system, thus deals with consciousness. According to the Hermes Axiom, everything can ultimately be understood in the same terms because the whole of creation is related. If there are universal laws, they apply accross the board. What is "real" in the subatomic realm must also be "real" in the cosmic realm. It must be "real" for human beings (or some vital aspect of ourselves) as well.

It’s eventually going to be "wild ideas" that end up transcending the limitations of the standard models to give us an accurate picture of what "Is."

By the by... I do support the idea of a universe that is driven by awareness, but i think it is too soon. I would not expect to see this come to pass until long after the steller phase has passed.

Maybe you are seing precursors to that time?

It is far, far simpler and more basic than that. If you think about a spacetime of GR, everything about it is encoded by its Lorentzian metric. For example, take the theorem of Hawking and Penrose about the necessity of spacetime singularities (under some hypotheses, of course). This theorem deals with the Lorentzian metric of spacetime. Its hypothesis are stated in terms of this metric (along with the manifold on which it lives), as are its conclusions. In GR, the Lorentzian metric is all!

I am dealing with the mathematical idealisation of spacetime as conceived of by Einstein, and as understood by physicists. Trouble is, they also comprehend quantum mechanics, and work that in there. I do not, so it is absent from my understanding.

This would be analogous to a diagram of crystalyn structure being compared to a hunk of quartz?

I don't want to answer that until I know what is playing the part of the hunk, and what is playing the part of the diagram :-) I can probably guess what you mean, but that spells trouble...

On curved space, Cliff, I’d mentioned the "lumpiness" of timespace, which existed early in the big bang event. Matter appears to have followed the pattern that this "lumpiness" describes, thus we have a universe with matter congregated into observable configurations following observable rules.

But if every particle of every atom of matter contains the ultimate "graviton-gravitino" as a supersymmetry, mass itself can’t be the mechanism of space curvature ("lumpiness"). The missing mass is bound into matter that’s already congregated. Because it’s symmetrically bound, it is infinite but unmanifest and cannot order the universe. Physics is so attached to provisional models that its practitioners soundly reject anything which threatens the model... including truth. This is not good science, this is a vested priesthood protecting a graven image.

What if gravity were a dimension instead of a field? Expansion of dimensional parameters just prior to the big bang was in no way related to the speed of light. The dimensions of the universe "tunneled," like a thought... Consciousness is not timebound. Matter and energy are timebound.

Time is a relative thing, Keith...

I’ll trust you on this. Too bad we can’t do diagrams here, because I might recognize better how this metric works as compared to the ancient devices I am more familiar with. I like the word "encode," though.

"Trouble is, they also comprehend quantum mechanics, and work that in there. I do not, so it is absent from my understanding."

They are inordinately fond of their chaotic little universe, aren’t they? I’ve long thought this "overweaning pride" is a direct result of the raw power in resources and megawatts physicists have been allotted for so long by a nation supposedly ‘grateful’ for the gift of Ultimate Destruction. More than a few high-energy particle physicists I’ve known would have made great demolition engineers if they could figure out how to take buildings down rather than blast them sky high!

Back to basics, aren’t we? The elegant equations can describe physical reality only if the "Cosmic Computer" is finite rather than infinite, and we are able to decode the programming. The human mainframe (brain) is a far more complex machine than the macroscopic cosmos - in our understanding. Our computer is examining its own internal programs by attempting to decode the hardware of the universe as it functions both above and below us.

The molecular matrix of the crystal describes precisely the form of the macrocrystal. All sorts of external factors may effect growth, which may cause random deformations and branching until instead of a crystal, we end up with a chunk of granite that in no way resembles the matrix. Still, under the right conditions, the model provided by the matrix (program) defines the finished product.

When science was young, many great thinkers described the universe as proceeding from "The Mind Of God." Metaphysically this concept is not exactly the god of religious fervor, but it was recognized that intelligent design was at work. The quest was to decode the intelligent design, ‘know’ the mind of God, thereby perfecting our own consciousness. That’s a pretty prideful presumption as well, but valid to human psychology (programming).

Human consciousness did not design and does not control the macrocomputer. The universe proceeds from the consciousness of that which created it (and us). Yet we share a microcosm of that consciousness and recognize that we CAN decode the program. This might qualify as the "Image Of God."

Mathematics certainly has no problem dealing with things which are not finite. Sometimes things which are `infinite' need more care, but I do not know in what context you are using the terms here, so I do not really know what is the case there. As to your second `decoding' proviso, well I'll agree with that.

BTW, mathematics is not equations any more than it is numbers. Mathematics is precise ideas, and understanding the objects you are dealing with, e.g., understanding that the structure of spacetime is governed by a very precisely definable object: its Lorentzian metric.

The finiteness of the universe in this context deals only with Alpha, Andrew. Beginning. Hopefully, none of us will be around to see the ending, but since time is a relative thing and people meet their endings every day - universally in every generation - perhaps Omega is within ourselves.

IOW, for the conceptual framework of particle physics to be valid, creation is required. There can be no "steady state" universe existing infinitely in time and space without beginning or end.

Hmmm... from what I see on the "Religion" board this afternoon, I guess it’s time for me to get back to basics too. The "Image Of God," which I have postulated may be our individual and/or collective Consciousness. Consciousness being in my view the deity’s intent to create a universe, or the thought which preordained everything that "Is" (except for us, of course).

Genesis, the story of creation and our place in it. As conceived in the minds of men - presumed to have been inspired by the Mind of God and passed through the "Image" to become the "Word Of God" to us. I view it as ultimately allegorical and ultimately True to any possible Truth we ourselves believe we may be able to define relating to creation, evolution, and human psychology. (I hereby qualify the allegorical status up to the time of Abraham, at which point the narrative is moving into the realm of history).

The Truth in the Genesis creation story need not provide us with either technological designs or minor details of the creation we are now studying so intently. But it does cover the heirarchial concepts very well. "Let There Be Light," the words used to describe the institution of universal parameters by listing the boundary itself. "The breath of God moved upon the waters," and Life was born. Again, the institution, parameters and boundaries of life in one carefully concocted set of words. Then there was a Special Creation, a pleasurable act by a God well-pleased with the "goodness" of all that had developed in the Garden. Beings to whom God gave His own "Image."

The emotionality displayed by the creator when his precious beings made the wrong choice is a surprisingly human reaction. Obviously, God recognized a serious danger to Himself. This is borne out in the allegorical content of Noah’s story, when God determined that the danger was so great that humans and every other life form on the planet should be destroyed. This is fear.

Job is one of the oldest books of the Bible, dating from the time of the Patriarchs. Here is a picture of a God who displays both sides of the coin as we see it - allowing Satan to destroy everything Job held dear, in some esoteric "test" of faith from a God who still wanted to believe the "Image" would ultimately win out. The challenging dialogue between creator and creature in this meaningful allegory tells us quite a bit. God comes across as almost childlike in this violent demand for attention from the one human who believes most strongly in Him, then boasts His ultimate superiority over the lowly creature who cowers before Him in utter submission.

In that exchange, it is Job who wins. Not by his complete submission to the power of the creator, but through his appeal for Justice. Psychologically, God is growing up, gaining some insight into how His isolated and helpless "Image" sees things. Mercy is born.

The entirety of Writ, historical, allegorical and poetic displays a monumental struggle for meaning on both sides. It also displays a fair psychological profile of the creator.

It isn’t the discovery of the mechanics of creation that God is worried about... this is something we’ve been preordained to figure out at some point in our development (evolution). It wasn’t our prideful presumption to intelligence and physical power that frightened our creator back in Eden or at the time of the Flood. It was our ignorance of good and evil, combined with our headlong rush to eat the fruit and "be like unto God" without doing the necessary homework.

Pride led to the wrong choice. Recognition of our likeness to God, ignorance of what it means to BE God... to BE that which transcends the polarity of a dual nature.

We aren’t there yet. We are still arguing that there can be no such polarity as good and evil in a relative universe. Yet we recognize polarity in all other manifestations of creation. It is only our personal polarity that remains fuzzy on the psychological level. Maybe we learned mercy the same time God did, and have confused mercy with the evil we feel to be in need of mercy. IMHO §:o)

Nothing scientific about that that I can see. But it does have to do with religion. Guess you must have switched from one to the other.

I am not convinced it does anything except tell an interesting story. Nothing wrong with a story, by the way. But that is what it is. It is a story.

Are you serious? A serious danger to God? Get real! Yeah, it was a human emotion, all right. It was a human emotion expressed by a human: God created in the image of man.

Yes, this is one of the more unrealistic and unbelievable aspects of the "J" story. It is one of the main reasons I find it so incredible that so many people actually believe this stuff. Even more unbelievable is the fact that intelligent, and otherwise sophisticated, people like yourself believe it.

Job is great literature and the author was a great philosopher. But it was not created early as you indicate. It is true that it's setting is the Patriarch period, but if I was to write a story about the American Revolutionary War, would you insist that the story I wrote was written in the time of George Washington?

Many aspects of the Job story, including the mention of Satan indicate it was written much later. That it's setting is in the Patriarch period is not an indication of when it was written.

This may tell us a great deal about the philosophy of the author of this tale, but it tells us absolutely nothing about God.

Nonsense. Pride is a useful virtue.

No, Cliff. I switched from physics to psychology. I’ve done that in my real life, did I tell you that? §:o)

"A serious danger to God? Get real! Yeah, it was a human emotion, all right. It was a human emotion expressed by a human: God created in the image of man."

...and visa versa. So?

"Even more unbelievable is the fact that intelligent, and otherwise sophisticated, people like yourself believe it."

Why should I not believe what is evident, my friend? Do I have all the Answers? Heck, I don’t even know all the questions!

"Many aspects of the Job story, including the mention of Satan indicate it was written much later. That it's setting is in the Patriarch period is not an indication of when it was written."

There are far more controversies about Job than you list. Do you deny its pertinence to the human condition?

I have never denied this, Cliff. It’s part of our nature, and motivates us to achieve even when all political and physical factors are against us. The problem with pride is that it often deceives us.

That’s the conundrum. We don’t yet understand the difference between the deceptions and the achievements. We have not yet digested that apple, and because we have not yet digested it, we can’t even come to an agreement amongst ourselves that Slobodan is evil. Look over at the Littleton board. Same story, different excuses. We are a most pitiable bunch...

Why do you think it is evident, my friend. It seems rather far fetched to me. Yes I know you had a vision. I can easily believe that you believe in that. But this?

And of course I do not deny the truth contained in the Book of Job and its pertinence to the human condition. I freely admit that the author of that noble work was a very great poet.

With respect to pride, for the most part, I think pride results in good choices, not bad ones. I wish people had more pride, not less.

Why do you think it is evident, my friend. It seems rather far fetched to me. Yes I know you had a vision. I can easily believe that you believe in that. But this?

And of course I do not deny the truth contained in the Book of Job and its pertinence to the human condition. I freely admit that the author of that noble work was a very great poet.

With respect to pride, for the most part, I think pride results in good choices, not bad ones. I wish people had more pride, not less.

I’m not exactly sure what "this" you’re talking about, Cliff... but I do apologize for going off on a preachy tangent. I did peruse the Religion board yesterday and got fairly disgusted. I don’t post over there very much because the targets are too easy so it’s not any fun, but they were sure leaving some huge holes! I should slap myself for allowing that to show up here. Sorry!

If you mean to question my belief in the veracity of the Bible, I honestly don’t see a good reason NOT to believe in it. Human beings are not limited to robotic functions in the world, the interactions of matter and energy in manifest creation. We also enjoy a rich inner life, a psychological complexity beyond any other creature on the planet. We have a spiritual nature.

We can (and do) ignore that spiritual nature by telling ourselves all sorts of demeaning things about how "silly" or "ignorant" or "primitive" it is, but that doesn’t really make it go away. It’s part of who we are. So rather than ignore it, I have embraced it and am trying to see where that may lead me. Thus far it does not appear to be leading me astray, and a great many of the concepts of spirituality are immensely useful in the practice and understanding of psychology.

No one denies the Bible is one of the more ancient works of human intelligence. The allegorical portions are handed down from pre-literate times, and deal directly with menifestations of the Collective Consciousness of humanity. Or Collective Unconsciousness, where the archtypes reside... including God. If it is studied in this way, it becomes one of the most brilliant descriptions of the mystery of our complex psychology ever conceived.

You may think of it in psychological terms only, and apply it on that level exclusively. One need not recognize the Truth if one chooses not to, but it would be wrong to deny that humans are subject to the vissitudes of their inner psychology and that this effects their interactions with the world. All the volumes of Freud and Jung never even approached the Bible’s clarity, simplicity and completeness. It’s the Whole Story. So I believe in its veracity.

Joy, Cliff: I'm glad you quit discussing theoretical physics, about which I am abysmally ignorant. But, Joy, you wouldn't accept (I hope) a scientific paper that wasn't based on empirical evidence that was confirmable by others. How can you accept as "Truth" a work of literature that is clearly biased? The OT was written to justify the history of the Hebrews as God's chosen--i.e., it is okay to kill the other guys. The NT is to proselytize the Gentiles. There is a lot of good stuff about the human condition and nature of man, but so is there in the Iliad and the Odyssey,Confucious, the Bahgavid Gita.

You may see the Bible as clear, simple and complete, but I see it as opaque, confusing, and full of inconsistencies. Rosemary said she didn't see any inconsistencies, so I am trying to locate the website I once ran across that was full of them. One point that arose recently in the context of Y2K was that Herod died in 4 BC, but the first Roman tax of the provinces didn't take place until 6-7 AD. So both of those could not have happened in the year of Jesus' birth. I've often wondered how people who believe in a virgin birth picture Jesus' DNA. All maternal, with a Y chromosome from God?

Which is not to say, however, that "belief" in the veracity of the Bible hasn’t caused big problems in the world! Sure, the indications contained in Writ about how we should go about dealing with our fellow humans should be practiced in the world, but the deeper levels of psychological understanding are for each of us to work out inside ourselves.

I didn’t have a "vision," I had a dramatic encounter witnessed by several reliable people who had also never seen an angel before. I accept that my expectations, nature and personal psychology dictated the terms of the encounter, but those would logically be the pathways God would use to manifest whatever messenger he was sending to me.

Projection is a verifiable psychological condition, and when applied to interactions between humans, often turns out to be exact to the psychology of both the projector and the projectee. I’m not amazed that God can use the same mechanism to project into real-time something that may not normally exist in real-time. The phenomenon of "possession" and "exorcism" as practiced by the RCC is, I expect, something along these lines but originating from the evil side of human nature.

I am simply of the opinion that neither angels nor devils actually possess human bodies and negate free will. Devils as "fallen angels" would have no more power to do this than Gabriel or Michael. At root it’s a projection into real-time of deep human psychology. Mental illness (psychological imbalance) in the case of demon possession, I believe. Exorcism works because it meets the manifestation on the manifestation’s terms. Does this make any sense?

Greetings, Dawn! Please forgive the digression on TGD, but I really enjoyed picking Andrew’s brain on that while I had him around with a brain to pick!!! I had not realized how much I missed the world I’d left behind so many years ago, but I also know it must have been boring to those who couldn’t follow. Sorry.

Actually, I do tend to suspend my judgment on scientific theories until I’ve rationalized the work for myself. That’s why TGD was so interesting. It’s a "wild idea" that is NOT accepted by the powers that be, and even if it’s absolutely correct won’t be accepted for at least a generation. That is the way it works in that world, which too often gets in the way of truth but also serves to keep blatant falsehoods from invading the canon. Telling the difference isn’t easy, but it is a fun brain exercise!

I wish the world of religious canon were as careful. I see no inconsistencies in the Bible, I see astounding brilliance. The inconsistencies arise inside of human psychology, which is then projected into the real-time world. The picking and choosing of "what" that particular psychology is most apt to believe based on the nature of the person doing the choosing. I call that "Interpretation," and I reject a good many Biblical interpretations. I do not reject the Bible.

What do you see as opaque, confusing and contradictory? The Bible or the various interpretations of the Bible?

Overview of what it was Andrew, Keith, Cliff and I were discussing with TGD, it boils down to Universal Creation. Andrew is a mathematician who works with the conceptualization of General Relativity (and Special Relativity on occasion, I’d bet), or the models developed by mathematics which describe Einstein’s vision.

I was once a particle physicist (on the practical application end). Physicists work with the same concepts, only they apply them directly to models they are generating to explain the "Big Bang," or actual creation and subsequent evolution of the universe. The separate terminology used for similar concepts between the two fields of science don’t make for easy communication, I’m afraid.

Physicists are convinced the universe was created at one point in timespace, from "nothing." All the evidence of the past 100 years of examining the nature of nature points toward Universal Creation. The mechanisms for this creation have been honed to within nanoseconds of the actual event. The ultimate goal is to explain "what" caused the universe to be created, and "why" it exists in the form we are able to observe.

I personally believe creation was the intentional thought and design of "God." Many physicists and mathematicians involved in the actual research believe it to be "Accident." It will not be much longer (in relativistic terms) before we have answers to our questions, and I think that’s very exciting.

God may turn out to be yet another mystery wrapped in enigma, and not at all the personal grandfather depicted by so many versions of religiosity. But just as I have faith that God has nothing to fear from science knocking on his door, I also have faith that humans have nothing to fear if God decides to answer. The Truth won’t hurt us, nor can it hurt God.

Trying VERY hard NOT to LOL...well I mean, what if there IS a lightening bolt?:-P

<Hands shaking over keyboard... must stop being so anal retentive... Aaargh! Can't do it!>

I am a mathematician, but I do not work in relativity (general or special) or in any related area. Also, for further refinement, I have no idea what TGD is :-)

My apologies, Andrew! I was so impressed with your definition of the Lorentzian metric and your apparent thorough grasp of it (whatever it is!) that I figured you did that kind of stuff all the time.

So... what IS it you do with yourself??? §:o)

TGD (Topological Geometrodynamics) is the "wild idea," subject of discussion. That’s all. It is a theoretical model of conscious interaction in the outcome of probability factors in quantum dynamics and the nature of the universe. It deals with "vacuum degeneration," "tunneling" of quantum particles through timespace, and points to the existence of field particles which physics has not yet accepted or demonstrated in experiments.

Also related to Universal Creation, but that’s physics and not mathematics. A fair enough disclaimer, Andrew? §:o)

LOL myself, Larry! Dawn has latched onto one of those "articles of faith" that religion expects its adherents to accept unquestioned. I’ve never been sure what the "punishment" for laughing is, since it’s the adherents’ money the church really wants, and belief has nothing to do with that! §:o)

This is a Pauline doctrine, a Hellenization of the "Christ" rather than something rooted in Hebraic tradition. The Christ (in Greek thought) had to claim divinity, and ignores the semantic fine points of the term "virgin" in the Old Testament as applicable to the person of Jashua Ben Joseph (Jesus). Jesus was a legitimate claimant to the Davidic throne through both his parents’ lineage. THAT is what both Herod and the Romans feared.

First, Joy, I have not detected any preachiness in any of your posts for some time. If you think you were preachy, I will take your word for it, but I did not detect it.

Sorry about referring to your experience as a "vision." Old understandings die hard, I guess :-)

But it appears to me that you are wrong about the virgin birth being a Pauline doctrine. Nowhere in any of the Pauline literature will you find even a hint of such a doctrine.

Both Matthew and Luke have virgin birth stories, but they are not the same, and, indeed, are very different, even contradictory. In Matthew, Joseph and Mary apparently made their home in Bethlehem, and Jesus was born at home. The appears to be the case since, according to Matthew, the three wise men visited Jesus at his home in Bethlehem. However, due to a warning from an angel of Herod's intent, Joseph fled to Egypt with his wife and the child. Then after the death of Herod, the angel again appeared to Joseph to tell him it was safe to return home.

But Joseph apparently did not trust the angel much and decided that since Archelaus, the son of Herod, now reigned, it would probably be safer for the child in the north, so he bypassed Bethlehem and settled in Nazareth--which is how it come to pass that Jesus grew up in Nazareth.

Now, the question is: how can this story be reconciled with the taxation story in Luke: of Joseph and Mary traveling to Bethlehem to be taxed, and Jesus being born in a manger, before their return home to Nazareth. The answer is that there is no way both stories can be correct. Actually, I think both were manufactured from whole cloth.

I wouldn’t put it past God to be able to accomplish a miraculous impregnation, but it’s not particularly pertinent to my acceptance of Jesus’ role. The saving grace Jesus offers to me is the opportunity to jump the Wheel and follow him to the "next level." (Why does this sound a lot like TGD?) It’s his human-ness that assures me I can accomplish this, not his divinity. So while I’m not denying divinity, I am affirming humanity.

There is archaeological dispute as to whether the town of Nazareth existed in the time of Jesus. There was, however, a sect of orthodox zealots... Messiahnists... called the "Nazrites" who were intent upon placing a descendant on the Davidic throne. Geneologies have been important to the Jews from the beginning. Mary and Joseph were not "nobodies" in the lineage, obviously having had their marriage arranged when they were very young.

The controversy arose when Mary turned up pregnant before the wedding, casting some doubt on the lineage and setting up a division among the Nazrites as to whether Jesus or his brother James was the proper pretender. But that’s not a Christian controversy.

Joy, as near as I can tell, there is no evidence, either internal or external to the Bible, that there was any controversy at all. Also, could you check the spelling of "Nazrites"? I have never heard of such a group, and I did a search of the internet and came up empty. Could you enlighten?

Yep, I got it wrong, Cliff. The term is "Nazirite," from the Hebrew "Nozrim" or "Nozrei."

The early Hebrews used the term "Nazirite" for someone who consecrates themselves to the service of God (Numbers 6:2-5). The "Nozrei" was a later designation in use by the zealots and their desert communities in the time of Jonathan Maccabaeus forward through the first century a.d. until they were slaughtered or scattered by the Romans following the Temple destruction in 70 a.d.

The Zadokites had held the priesthood since the time of Solomon. When the Hasmoneans (Herod’s family) took the throne and declared themselves to be the high priests, the Zadokites rebelled and many followed Jonathan into the wasteland to separate themselves from the blasphemous Hasmoneans. Among the terms by which the Qumran community [Yahad] referred to themselves was 'Keepers of the Covenant', which appears in the original Hebrew as 'Nozrei ha-Brit'. From which derives the word 'Nozrim', which is also one of the earliest Hebrew designations for the sect subsequently known as 'Christians'.

From Qumran - "'(The) government shall [not] pass from the tribe of Judah.' During Israel's dominion, a Davidic descendant on the throne shall not c]ease. For 'the Staff' is the covenant of the kingdom. [The lead]ers of Israel, they are 'the Feet', until the Messiah of Righteousness, the Branch of David comes, because to him and his seed was given the covenant of the kingdom of his people in perpetuity, because he kept...the Torah with the men of the Community..." - "A Genesis Florilegium" (4Q252, Column 5)

There is a lot of good scholarship out there on the Qumran community and Dead Sea Scrolls. The Hebrew University in Israel’s "Orion" project is a good place to look as well, if you’re interested.

...The controversy is right there in the Gospels. It includes Jesus and John the Baptist, and if all that jealousy, priestly cries of "foul," plotting, planning and murder don’t qualify as controversy, I sure don’t know what does!

Not that it matters, of course. It’s been 2,000 years, and Christianity grew long ago into a neatly-packaged money-making machine, which then exploded into a thousand pieces when Bibles began to be printed in the popular venacular. Everybody’s got an interpretation to offer, maybe a whole denomination named after them, but few modern Christians know anything about the historical Jesus and the actual events surrounding his life and mission. Paul ecumenized the message with his Christology, so facts need not confuse anyone.

I like to understand at least something about what I believe. A slightly suspicious nature, I guess, which is why I’ve never signed anybody’s dotted line defining for me what I am faithful to.

Meanwhile...

Because the legal situation concerning our son’s miracle is still up-in-the-air, I’m back to contemplating the mechanics. I could just present the manifestations and supporting testimony and let others come to their own conclusions - which in the end may be the best thing - but my own mind demands a rational explanation...

Physical evidence is contained in the medical records and testimony. There was anomalous brain plumbing, and this goes a long way toward explaining things medically. The manifestation of the angel is another problem entirely.

I must believe (because I believe) that God has engineered things just so on purpose. There must therefore be a physical mechanism through which He can project into the timespace where we live. I understand the psychological basis of projection, but the physical reality of the angel is something I cannot explain... yet. It's a time/Not-Time phenomenon. I get the feeling there is something about the TGD theory of consciousness that goes a long way toward a rational explanation, if I could only grasp it...

I’ve been spending some time going over the voluminous information on Pitkanen’s site, including some of the papers published by others applying TGD to some more anomalous manifestations of reality... such as antigravity. That page link is - TGD Antigravity . It is very intriguing.

Im still unclear on how the Consciousness TGD model can presume a massless hedgehog, though I can see how this works according to the multi-layered timespace and the brains ability to see the world on those terms. For diagrams and short explanation, the page is - Diagrams.

From the site - "Essential point is that entire determistic quantum histories are involved and without further assumptions it seems that timelessness characterizes conscious experience. Thus the problem is how to understand the concept of subjective time and finite duration of subjective experience. Somehow the conscious experience is not localized to infinitely short time interval but has finite duration, multilocality in time."

IOW... How can you be in two places at once if you’re not anywhere at all? §:o)

<pulls hair from head> ARGH!!!!! That's -

Joy, have you read any of Barbara Brennan's books? She is a former NASA physicist who now writes about energy and consciousness. She explains it in scientific terms -- you might find it interesting. Michael Talbot's "Holographic Universe" is interesting, as well.

Thanks, Dianne! I will order tomorrow. I’m in definite need of something a little less technical than Helsinki has on-line. I’ve already got a good picture of how it works, but translating - even for my own understanding - is not very easy.

Time, Not-Time, 3-tiered Timespace, 8-dimensional Reality, Time lag associative sequencing, Massless Monopoles... it opens up a whole other universe. TGD is still without an adequate mechanism of time. I once worked on a project using a designed-matrix grown crystal, and discovered a measurable negentropic effect inside the shielding. This led to a theory of neutrino deflection, which conversely pointed to neutrinos as the agents of entropy.

Similar work with natural crystals eventually won the Nobel, and the mechanism was also postulated to be neutrinos. The work was done nearly 30 years ago. Physics has resisted the necessity to fit this into their descriptions of the universe. Pitkanen says he’s been working on TGD for more than 20 years.

The Second Law is not absolute, and this is not something the priesthood is very happy about. Time can be "bent," and not just by cosmic-sized conglomerations of matter. Gravity as currently defined cannot be the mechanism of curved spacetime, and time is something more than just a relative perception.

I’ve got an angel and a miracle to explain. Surely God knew I’d try...

Joy, as I understand it, most physicists now accept the "Big Bang" theory based on empirical measurements, etc. that point to that theory as more correct than the previous one of the universe always existing, without beginning or end. Theologians like the Big Bang because it indicates creation, and I suppose the corollary of an end-time as well--although the last I read, the physicists now suggest an infinitely expanding universe is possible, world without end. I don't understand physics very well, but I do understand the scientific method, and I know that scientific theories have a way of being reaffirmed or discredited as technology improves. If the theory is true, then all the data will support it. If not, eventually some data won't fit and scientists will work night and day to resolve the discrepancy. So these TGDs. whatever they are, will eventually be shown to be correct, or not.

BTW, thanks for the bible links. I've been very interested in the Dead Sea Scrolls, having recently plowed my way through Eisenman's "James the Brother of Jesus." (He suggests that James, not Paul, was the legitimate heir to Jesus's ministry). Glad to hear that you are skeptical about the virgin birth, too. But from what I've been able to gather, you think the ressurection (physical?) happened? Or could have?

I've never seen an angel, butI have been around several people at the moment of death. I was struck with how very biological and not at all spiritual death actually is. If the dying had near-death experiences, it wasn't obvious to those standing by. So why some and not others? Why did you see an angel and 99.9% of mothers of dying children don't?

On another topic, sort of. I heard a lecture by Thomas Insel, Director of the Yerkes Primate Center, who is studying the biologic basis of monogamy. He's shown that the praire vole and the montane vole differ only in that trait, and traced it to oxytocin (female) and vasopressin (male) receptors in the reward and reinforcement centers of the brain. All voles release oxytocin or vasopressin when they mate, but in the montane vole mating is associated with a lifetime attachment to the vole it first mated with! Insel is now trying to confirm this theory in primates, where species form different kinds of "pair bonds." The oxytocin release at birth seems to be responsible for the mother-infant bond, but females who don't actually give birth often release oxytocin in response to just seeing an infant in some species. Insel, a psychiatrist as well as a neuroscientist, believes that conditions where the ability to form human attachments is missing--such as autism--might have their biolgical bases in these hormone/receptor interactions...or lack thereof. We humans do have those two pound computers sitting on top of our spines that can reason around a lot of our biological impulses, but some of us clearly have more impulses to reason around (and less computing power to reason with, too)! Again, the unfairness of it all! Which is why most people want to believe in a heaven where justice reigns.

Dianne - I encourage individual scholarship. As long as you recognize what is fact and what is "interpretation," there is a great deal of good information out there. One cannot truly exercise Free Will unless one has a reasonable overview of both ends of the choice to be made. The Scrolls have fascinated me for a long time, as has the story of James and the Zadokite division over which was the "proper" heir. James apparently believed completely in his older brother, so it didn’t matter in the end what the Nazrim thought about it.

There’s also a lot of plain garbage sandwiched in there, so keep your salt-lick handy. §:o)

Yes, I do believe resurrection could have happened. I understand the value of Christology and its ultimate truth. But again, it doesn’t really matter to my faith whether or not Jesus was raised bodily from the dead. I’m not one of those who looks forward to bodily resurrection so I can extract bloody vengeance on all my "enemies" for a thousand years. Once I learn to fly, I’m outta here!

I’ve experienced Not-Time, thus subjectively "know" it is real. This is a region of Consciousness unconnected to the atoms and molecules of this timespace - forms are perceived, but may be just the product of perception (in this case, "memory") of physical timespace. It’s a different frequency, but it’s still "alive."

Dianne’s Question - "So why some and not others? Why did you see an angel and 99.9% of mothers of dying children don't?"

To tell you the truth, Dianne, I honestly don’t know. Maybe it had more to do with my son than with me. I’m an awfully poor risk for an angel. I could probably have accepted the miracle in terms that would not have threatened the hallowed halls. Maybe write a nice article for a Reader’s Digest or something. I was (and am) entirely unlikely to overlook an angel that’s got me by the throat.

I don’t know why I was allowed or was able to follow my son into Not-Time, either. I was the one who had the "Near Death Experience," since my son was actually dead. The dead do not come back to tell us any stories, only the ones who don’t die get to do that. The Not-Time angel wasn’t particularly upset to see me, though he was surprised. I remember every detail vividly, so I wasn’t likely to overlook that experience in the context of all this, was I?

I don’t know. I sincerely doubt God loves me more than anybody else. But I wouldn’t put it past Him to have loved Pup especially. Maybe there was something more implicit in the message to me, a person highly likely to go looking for the smoke and mirrors... if they’re there. Who knows?

Whoa, heads up, Joy! You're addressing Dianne but talking to Dawn.

Have you ever wondered if that was in fact an angel, and not some other entity?

Whoa! Sorry, Dianne! I see those capital Ds and it’s like what shows up on the address book! My apologies to both you and Dawn. §:o)

I’m not sure what you mean by "other entity." If you are thinking Satan or some other "fallen" angel rather than Michael or a "non-fallen" angel, I’m not sure there’s much difference when dealing with angelic manifestations. I like to believe I’d know evil, as I do encounter it in humans on a fairly regular basis and am able to recognize it. This was not the feeling I got, though there was nothing particularly comforting about the manifestation. In hindsight, given the outcome of the long ordeal, comfort wasn’t really appropriate, was it?

Dawn - I’ve been working with a group of lay-midwives (legal here) and Dulas, and have attended many home births. One of my dearest friends is "Lactation Counselor" for the local health department. Do you believe there is any demonstrable difference in the bonding instinct when birth is "drugged" (both mother and infant) and when it’s not? How do you see bonding in fathers?

TGD is a theory that I’d guess originated to explain Second Law violations and the inadequate conception of gravity/time. Physics has long known it is at an impasse and can go no closer to creation without seriously reconsidering its basics. It does not wish to do so.

The Big Bang model is accurate. The main problem is many years’ worth of accumulating evidence of design, which defeats the "God is Dead" premise. You are right. They will either accept the truth as it reveals itself, or play the extinction card. Who knows? I do know that threats of punishment or promises of reward are not things which can force universal surrender of Free Will, no matter how often or how cruelly the political world seeks to do just that.

By "political world," I am speaking as much about organized religion as I am about science and nation-states. It’s a power struggle, on all levels.

Thanks for the link, Dawn. Because so many manifestations of genetic disease or even plain old "dominance" exhibit themselves through the set of genes donated by one parent or the other, there's another hormone-based trigger science needs to identify and isolate.

That could well lead to cures for genetically-based disabilities by "turning on" the compensating factors that have been sexually repressed... I'm all for it! §:o)

Yes, I also appreciated the link. I wonder what Tom Anderson (an old cloning debating foe who thought cloning could not possibly be dangerous) would say about that? It also caused me to think about cloning enough to go searching for additional information for the first time in months. (It used to be something I did on a regular basis.)

Completes idiots answere?

I suspect that the majority of an individual's chromozones are less than perfect. When you have two sets to arrive at one with there is a great deal more error correction possible than with a single set.

There must be a very significant survival advantage to sexual reproduction since it is so prevelent.

You’re daddy never explained that to you, Keith? §;o)

If they’re planning to engineer the "Master Race" asexually, I’d guess they’re in for some resistence on basic principles. There’s no shortage of humans on this planet, and the best that science is able to do for people who believe they’re sterile (more than a few of those with 2 or 3-year olds running around the house) is to turn women into dalmations. People weren’t meant to have litters, or men would produce milk and we’d all have at least 4 teets!

The research is valuable. A cloned human is a circus side-show freak.

Joy -

Not to mention the ambiguous legal status of such a "person".

(PS - I replied to your recent post on the Alt.Med. board)

Larry - Legal status would be official "orphan," for which legal guardian status could be assigned to his/her "keepers." Very, very freakazoid, as my grandson would say...

I answered you as well, over on the AM board. §:o)

Just to interject briefly, identical twins are natural clones, and we don't call them freaks or debate about their legal status :) Now I agree that having a lab produce dozens of clones would be a little bizarre, but I don't think the legal system would have much difficulty with it.

Hmmm... interesting point, Leszek. But identical twinning is a natural genetic phenomenon. I have a friend (male) who has a history of twinning on both sides of his family, appearing frequently in every other generation. He and his brothers are all singles, but he has 2 "extra" teets... Always made me wonder what a sister might have looked like if they’d had one!

Artificial cloning would be an ugly project, a step above "dalmation." They’d have to create a whole batch of embryos and emplant them, hoping for one that might turn out human. This leads to selective abortion if more than three take root, and what would happen if any of the remaining fetuses were defective is not something we’d care to contemplate. Thus I sincerely doubt that this will ever take the place of normal reproduction... or at least, I HOPE not!!! There are far more useful applications of stem cell research.

Leszek and Joy -

Unless the "parent" of the lab-manufactured person was known there very well may be legal problems. How, for instance, is a birth certificate to be conferred? The "person" is not born, but rather manufactured (no doubt with a slip of paper in one of the orifices indicatiing "inspected by #62").

Without a properly issued birth certificate, one cannot obtain a social security number, passport, etc. How does this "person" prove who he/she is? No, I think there ARE legal problems here, and I don't think I've even indicated the worst of it. I'm not a lawyer, but I think there are problems here.

Oh, I expect the identity question wouldn't be much of a problem legally, in that the embryos would have to be emplanted, thus would be born in the normal way (if one considers C-section "normal"). A birth certificate could then be issued as a matter of course.

I just don't think it's rational, due to the high likelihood that one or more of the embryos would be born severely defective, which is a horror story even Steven King couldn't imagine. Even the defective clones would be "human" genetically, and what might the donor do with a lump of flesh with a brain? This is insidious in the extreme "Dr. Morrow" sense.

I know there are evil as well as mad scientists out there who will do anything for money. But even a thoroughly evil scientist would have to take into consideration the ramifications of failure. Should the rest of the world discover what was done, there'd be no end of comeuppance that would end stem cell research for good. That's why I'm not too worried about it.

Larry--there are already legal, ethical and moral questions arising every day because of today's reproductive technology. Example: A couple paid to have a surrogate mother bear a child from an unrelated donor egg and sperm. Then the couple split, and the judge ruled the child had no parents with financial responsibility. So he was put up for adoption.

Another case--a judge recently ruled that two lesbians are the two biolgical parents of a child, since one donated the egg (fertilized by anonymous sperm)that was implanted into her partner, who carried the fetus and gave birth. WE don't need clones to have problems!

Dawn - Glad you are keeping up with the precedents in reproductive technology. In the first case you mentioned, I'd be tempted to appeal. If the couple split and no longer wishes to raise the child, it's fine to put it up for adoption. But because these people are directly responsible for the existence of the child, both should be made financially responsible until adulthood. IMO.

In the second case, the ruling sounds quite reasonable. The sperm donor is anonymous, and definitely shouldn't be held to any physical responsibility of parenthood for how that donated sperm is used. Because one partner donated the egg and the other carried the baby to term, what other ruling could there possibly be?

I agree with Joy, I think for the forseeable future any human clones would have be born in the traditional way. Even if you managed to create an artifical womb, I really don't think there'd be a technical problem in issuing each synthetic birth with a name and birth certificate :)

I don't see unsurmountable legal obstacles to recognizing them as individuals - our personalities are not purely the products of our genes, after all, and as it is, we already all have far many more genes in common than are unique to us... just about every gene we have is shared with many people (and many with other animals), it's the combination that's unique. And since we have no difficulty assigning individuality to two people with identical genetic heritage as it is... doesn't seem too problematic from that narrow perspective.

However, I also agree with Joy that I can't imagine why anyone would want to do that deliberately.

I agree with you here too... Solomonic, ain't it? :)

Wow, Leszek! Hadn't thought of it in those terms (Solomonic), but you're absolutely right! Hmmm... are you hiding something about your Biblical expertise? §:o)

Gee, Joy, you and Leszek can call it Solomonic if you wish, but what I want to know who it is you think should appeal the decision: the child? the state?

Although the child might be considered to have a interest in the case, I would guess the child, being a minor, might have trouble executing the steps necessary for an appeal, and I think the state might have a hard time justifing the cost of an appeal if adoptive parents can be found to assume the responsibility. Actually, I would suspect the judge may have made the ruling he/she did in order to make the child available for adoption as soon as possible. (Generally, the younger the child, the sooner the adoption.)

I say get that child some loving adoptive parents as soon as possible and stay away from "visitation rights" and other such like from people who really don't give a care for the child anyway.

Solomonic? In the first case, I think not. With respect to the second case, your argument is much stronger IMHO.

You may be right, Cliff, but that just means you and I both agree with the second ruling. In the first, I agree wholeheartedly that adoption (immediate) is fully warranted. I just think that the people responsible for the existence of the child should be assessed.

Whether that's "child support" that would entail visitation rights is up to the state. I'd say no, just an assessment in trust for the upbringing of the child. They obviously could afford it or they wouldn't have paid all that money to ensure the child's existence in the first place. But since I'm not a lawyer, what do I know? The state has the interest in at least setting a precedent so this sort of thing doesn't get out of hand.

Okay, Joy, I agree you have a theoretical point. But sometimes I think it is best to just let it go. Here is why. When people are assessed financial responsibility for a child, the first thing they do is sue for visitation even it they don't want it.

It is my observation that when a person is forced to pay for something, they tend to insist on receiving what they paid for, even if they don't want it. They may immediately throw it away, but they want it to throw away. It is the nature of a human.

Furthermore, the legal system being as it is, people assessed the finacial responsibility and who, in turn, sue for visitation are likely to get it. After all, it seems "only fair," that if a person must pay for something, they ought to be able to reap the benefits, and people who can afford the assessment of finacial responsibility is likely also to be able to afford a good lawyer.

But I think it is clearly not in the child's best interest. So I say, let it go. Get the child some caring adoptive parents and let it go. Not every single piece of misconduct must be punished. Not every single wrong must be righted.

Probably right on a human nature level, Cliff. Still, it's going to take resources from the state to hear the case and make a ruling, plus resources to care for and ensure adoption of the child. It should be possible to assess these costs to the parents without entertaining the possibility for future responsibility or visitation, if for no other reason than to establish the precedent that the state will not assume responsibility for children who wouldn't be there if technology had not been misused for purely selfish reasons.

Heck. It would be even easier for fertility experts and clinics and surrogates to nip the entire problem in the bud by making this provision part of the original contract...

Upon re-reading, I do realize that the state also assumes a large expenditure of resources for the children it is forced to intervene for in situations of natural procreation where the parents are unfit or abusive. But in those instances, it is the state which chooses to intervene for the welfare of the child. Since I deal with such cases regularly, I am of the opinion that the larger society should pick up the tab, and should be far more assertive in denying parental rights and allowing adoption. Some people should not have children, nor should they be allowed to prevent forever the ability of the child to receive loving upbringing from those who are willing and able to provide it.

It's just that the misuse of reproductive technology can be a nightmare if society allows spoiled rich brats to create children that get "dumped" because they get in the way of selfishness. Spoiled rich brats can afford to pay for their mistakes and deserve to do so when they make those mistakes. Sure, it's a double standard, but isn't everything?

Women too poor or stupid to use birth control and too immature to be responsible for children are a sad fact of biological reproduction drives. Those who would go to all the trouble of artificially creating a human being for their own ego-gratification can pay for the time and trouble to deal with the aftermath.

Joy, in principle, I agree with you. But getting the money from those "spoiled rich brats" means dragging the child through the court system in the first place. But that was what has already happened, was it not, and the state lost, did it not?

Now what if the state had won the judgement? What is to prevent the "spoiled rich brats" from appealing the decision? And once that appeal is lost--if it is--what is to prevent the "spoiled rich brats" from dragging the child further through the court system over visitation?

The chances are excellent that the "spoiled rich brats" will get visitation if they sue for it (assuming they are forced to pay). Thus the child gets dragged through the court system even further when the state subsequently appeals that ruling. This sort of thing can go on forever.

Sure it is for a principle. I understand that, Joy. But sometimes I think it is best to say to hell with principle and do the right thing for the child: let it go. Get the child some loving adoptive parents and let it go. To do otherwise is far more expensive to the state and counter-productive to the best interests of the child.

Incidentally, Joy, I do think you said a mouthful when you said: "...in situations of natural procreation where the parents are unfit or abusive...the larger society should...be far more assertive in denying parental rights and allowing adoption."

I generally agree with that. But the problem with that stance is that when the state becomes "more assertive" it tends to look overly arbitrary.

The state must use the courts to get the judgements it needs. But if the state appears too assertive, it tend to lose it's cases. The courts are also for individuals, who have been abused by the state, incidentally. And it is quite possible for an "abusive" or "unfit" parent to win against an overly assertive state. It happens.

Reply from Religion Today:

Another zinger from Mark...

Trust me, unless you are more of a universalist than you appear, there are many things, which upon explanation to you, you would not understand. Might I suggest a more cautious approach when faced with something you do not understand: admit you don't understand it, and move on. Either that or put the effort into understanding it, which I cannot say you have done for SR since you have given a remarkably shallow noninterpretation of it on the religion board.

Yes, and in doing so, Leszek keeps as good a company as one can keep when it comes to considering Einstein wrong, namely the company of Einstein himself. Don't forget that after the advent of quantum mechanics in it current guise, Einstein did spend the remainder of his life looking for something which would replace GR.

I readily admit my predudice on the side of justice, Cliff. A product of who I am and what I do. It just seems so silly to me to view dalmations-hood and legal debates about test-tube/surrogate babies who nobody wants as anything real in any real-life child's life. This is stupid. In the extreme.

Andrew, I hear you buddy. Good luck in transferring it here where it belongs!

Yes, my friend, I know this better than most people do. I am in the cyclone’s vortex as we speak. On all sides towards the middle. But it’s going well. So I’ll stand my ground here!

"The clown remains a mysterious figure, a medieval character in the razzle-dazzle mechanization of the age of the atom. He is a crazy-house mirror into which men and women as individuals can look to see themselves, their friends, enemies and neighbors, and beyond them the forces that influence and sometimes threaten everyone’s life. Clowning can be that serious."

Bill Ballentine, Founding Director, Ringling Clown College...

I am a clown. Since the dim prehistory of human ascendancy on this planet, the clown has played the role of psychological policeman. He pokes fun at our foibles and guises of our unruly human passions. The archetype of The Fool reminds us that the powerful are as prey to foolishness as are the humble. And the fool is not afraid to admit that, in court or in the village square.

It’s his job to exaggerate, to be bawdy and rique, to appeal to the weaknesses and fears all human beings share, to poke fun at the hypocracy of human pretentions which define cultural norms as the Infallible Word of God.

The work of transcending the opposites inherant in duality is the goal of both physics and religion. The scientific search for Perfect Symmetry underlying material manifestation, the Judeo-Christian seach for meaning in human suffering. In both, we are drawn by the gravity of the search itself - which is nothing less than the quest for the Holy Grail - toward the "Singularity at the Beginning of Time."

This is my personal answer to Job...

I drew the two axioms from a standard reference in the philosophy of science. No one has offered a reference contradicting mine. And no one has offered a counterproof. You attack an axiom that subjective experience is not objective by jumping into scientific reasoning about the axiom. But that is fallacious. There's no way to refute what is assumed.

You may believe that the assumptions of science need revision, but until you get many other people to agree with you, science addresses only the objective and not the subjective. You are welcome to your own views, stated as your own views, but not attributed to a community that includes me.

I don't really see why things we can prove in an acelerator need to be beaten to a pulp on the debate floor. :-) (Good show, btw.)

Keith, you can't prove a thing with an accelerator. All you can do is take data. The data, in turn, are used in a number of activities, but proof is not one of them. In science, there are proofs regarding formal models, but never data. Even the goodness of fit of the model to data is statistical, not mathematical.

Leszek, I respect your sincerity. It appears you may be thinking that if you observe the phenomena associated with a subjective experience, then you have gotten at the subjective. We're back to distinguishing the manifestation of an entity and its inward being. The distinction is not a scientific question, but a matter of philosophy and linguistics.

Joy, I want my "attaboy!"

How do you justify the first axiom against uncertainty? Aren't all events and properties subjective when observed?

I agree with a philosophical demarkation, but not based on subjectivity. Science has a great deal of subjectivity in it.

Measuring the position of an electron is certainly a subjective task.

Atta boy, Thomas! I haven’t digested your post yet, but right off I’ll say I think it’s perfectly possible for science to recognize the duality of experience, and make a fairly clear demarkation between subjective and objective. In that...

Keith is correct to say that at base, quantum (particle) physics is subjective because it is predicated on a principle of uncertainty.

I am (was?) primarily a data analyst, working with practical - and not so practical - applications. I knew a lot of theorists though (several in my family), so I’d let them worry about proofs and equations to demonstrate what we’d already figured out or could predict with accuracy.

Joy, I meant that I tried to pull the debate over here, away from the Religion Today board. We'll see what happens.

I think you need to further define "science," Thomas. For instance, medicine is considered science, with a great deal of good research being done on consciousness, brain functioning, associative sequencing and networks, genetics, and pharmacology. Psychology is developing viable models of consciousness as well, and charting the associated phenomena.

Everything perceived by the senses and interpreted by the brain would qualify as "subjective" if totally objective criteria were applied to thought, memory, emotion, and all the other aspects of conscious experience. Perhaps you are right that by their own imposed limitations scientists cannot prove they think, but I doubt you’d find many scientists who would tell you they don’t believe in thinking.

I suspect there are certain manifestations of a subjective spirituality that could be quantified adequately enough to demonstrate the objective existence of the phenomena. Maybe by the preponderance of evidence rather than beyond reasonable doubt, but that’s enough. The eggheads at CERN might ignore it completely, but so what? If the science that studies the phenomenon can produce the evidence, what do eggheads have to do with it? §:o)

I knew that! Attaboy anyway, as this is where it should be. Not as busy, but a lot less frustrating.

BTW - Just because I can see that there may be ways for subjective experience to be quantified to a certain degree, does NOT mean I necessarily advocate doing so. The gang at CERN can stay there, and I’ll be happy to let medicine and psychology work out the theorems!

How do you justify the first axiom against uncertainty? Aren't all events and properties subjective when observed?

First, the fundamenatal assumptions of science (e.g., determinism, empiricism, parsimony) are just assumptions. They are not justified in the philosophy of science. They are a codified part of science, written down in books.

In one mode of philophical analysis, I agree that percepts are subjective. Indeed, there is no way to verify absolutely the existence of anything but the self. But this is not the mode codified in the culture of science. My experience is that these matters often seem stranger to hard scientists than soft scientists, because it seems to take more explicit knowledge of scientific philosophy to do solid research in the soft sciences.

I agree with a philosophical demarkation, but not based on subjectivity. Science has a great deal of subjectivity in it.

Science broke off from religion and alchemy by declaring that its domain would be strictly limited to the empirical, and that entails the objective. I think you are talking about the subjectivity of scientists' perspective.

Measuring the position of an electron is certainly a subjective task.

We are using subjective differently. I am talking about the subject as the self or inwardness of the entity. The object is what is perceived, the outwardness. All measurement has inherent uncertainty or fuzziness, but what is measured is the outward object, not its inward subject. In other words, science demands that phenomena be public and similarly observable by all, and not private or otherwise unseen.

Regarding definition of science, you gave a great list of topics, which would be part of an extensive definition of science. They differ somewhat in methods, to be sure. But this does not contradict a claim that there is an intensive definition shared by all sciences. The intension includes fundamental axioms that have been around for a long time. My proof follows from the axioms.

But now let's say that at the quantum level physics has been forced by the data to abandon the (artificial, we agree) assumption of empiricism. The inability to remain objective at the quantum level is as much a failure as a discovery. It poses huge problems, and scientists should cling to empiricism like a lifebuoy.

Psychology is developing viable models of consciousness as well, and charting the associated phenomena.

I am skeptical and biased. I cannot imagine it happening unless consciousness is operationalized. Perhaps consciousness could be made an intervening variable, similar to "thirst."

Perhaps you are right that by their own imposed limitations scientists cannot prove they think, but I doubt you’d find many scientists who would tell you they don’t believe in thinking.

That is what I believe the nature of the game to be.

...manifestations of a subjective spirituality that could be quantified adequately... to demonstrate the objective existence of the phenomena.

I don't limit the ability of science to deal with any manifestation that is empirical. Science is an empirical discipline. (Astounding?!)